AsiJu:

Hardware needs software to tell it what to do. Period. By extension said software can be excluded from executing (via software means) without affecting hardware functionality. Anyone thinking otherwise needs to educate themselves on how computers work.

you give off the impression that all you need to do is put in the firmware that if it detects bitcoin.exe for the gpu to not run. the gpu is just a glorified calculator. Look what happened with the spectre and meltdown patches. You limit functionality and then take a performance hit. What if certain algorithms are shared by both games/video encoders/image processing programs and specific miners?

fry178:

@Aura89 So how about cars? Would you be fine, paying double for the next one, just others decided to abuse them (off road/racing etc), and manufacturers jack up prices? Its not really about what product is, but the fact that they misuse it, and others have to pay for it. When something is designed for gaming/video acceleration etc, i dont even care how they are able to use them, just don't want them to able to use gtx cards at all. And even the name says it all. gpu as in graphic processing unit, not mpu as in mining... All that besides the fact that any digital currency that isnt backed by anyone, could go bankcrupt tomorrow, and all the resources and especially power spend on mining it, were for nothing. Mining is already consuming more power than most countries.

I am not happy about the hiked up gpu prices but miners are not at fault for doing what they are doing. You have every right to use a gpu in any way you want. Whether it is for gaming, video editing, image processing, folding at home or mining. Also gaming is just as much a waste of electricity... Edit: and your analogy is terrible... buying a car and using it to race is not an abuse...

Sure you can use it anyway, just don't expect coverage if it dies. And once they implement that it cant be used for mining, prices will go down. So yes, i do blame miners, as the cards would NOT be as expensive if miners wouldn't buy them. And the analogy works. Go to any Ferrari/porsche/lambo dealer and ask if they cover any "damage/part failure" caused by track use. And im not talking about crashing it.

fry178:

Sure you can use it anyway, just don't expect coverage if it dies. And once they implement that it cant be used for mining, prices will go down. So yes, i do blame miners, as the cards would NOT be as expensive if miners wouldn't buy them. And the analogy works. Go to any Ferrari/porsche/lambo dealer and ask if they cover any "damage/part failure" caused by track use. And im not talking about crashing it.

Considering that miner cards are undervolted and underclocked they are more akin to a taxi. The ones that should be considered race cars it is the gamer cards.

fry178:

@Aura89 So how about cars? Would you be fine, paying double for the next one, just others decided to abuse them (off road/racing etc), and manufacturers jack up prices?

Yes, absolutely i would, because it's their RIGHT TO BUY PRODUCTS IF THEY CAN. What is so hard to understand about that? You're literally getting upset over the fact that people are LEGALLY buying a product to use in a LEGAL way.

fry178:

Its not really about what product is, but the fact that they misuse it, and others have to pay for it.

No one is "having to pay for it". Its your choice to buy a product that is in high demand and has an inflated price, or not.

fry178:

When something is designed for gaming/video acceleration etc, i dont even care how they are able to use them, just don't want them to able to use gtx cards at all.

And therein lies the problem with your nonsense. You're saying you're upset that people are able to use a product to do what its intended to do(math), in a legal way. All because your mindset is "This product is for this, and this only!". I guarantee you, and everyone in this entire world, has used a product for something it was not "technically" built for, because either it did it better, or you had to. And unless it was an illegal thing to do, then there was no problem doing so. Again, everyone is ALL about being able to do more with less and be less restricted with our products we buy, all up until it affects you even a slight bit negatively, and then all of the sudden "Nope! Don't want it anymore! Restrict this product that is being used legally and doing what its intended to do!" for your nonsense selfish reasons.

AsiJu:

I find it quite ironic that when I present possible solutions to restrict mining (be them feasible or not) the first reply I get that it's selfish.

Can't help that it is selfish. You're suggesting something that'll benefit you and harm others, all for your benefit.

anthos:

Edit: and your analogy is terrible... buying a car and using it to race is not an abuse...

It's a perfect analogy. Take your car on a track and your warranty is null and void. So is your auto insurance unless you have specific coverage for offroad/track use. And to further my point, not long ago nVidia banned the use of Consumer graphics cards in datacenters

Andrew LB:

It's a perfect analogy. Take your car on a track and your warranty is null and void. So is your auto insurance unless you have specific coverage for offroad/track use. And to further my point, not long ago nVidia banned the use of Consumer graphics cards in datacenters

The analogy is bogus because it originally had zero to do with warranty. Should mining void the warranty? sure, i don't care, doesn't make the analogy any more or less bogus. The analogy was buying a product and using it for what it was not "intended" to do, in such large quantities, that it causes the price of said product to increase due to low supply. And in that case, in regards to the car for instance, i couldn't care less if someone wanted to buy 90% of the cars manufactured because it had a specific item in it and the only way to get that item was to buy the car. That's THEIR LEGAL choice.

Andrew LB:

It's a perfect analogy. Take your car on a track and your warranty is null and void. So is your auto insurance unless you have specific coverage for offroad/track use. And to further my point, not long ago nVidia banned the use of Consumer graphics cards in datacenters

That's because Nvidia wants data center customers to buy their much more expensive Tesla cards. Also, I find it curious how the license reads: "The SOFTWARE is not licensed for datacenter deployment, except that blockchain processing in a datacenter is permitted.", which means the mining with consumer GPUs is allowed. So miners are permitted to use consumer GPUs for mining, and yet this is considered abuse?

I never said or stated anything about illegal use. you can throw your card in the grand canyon if thats what you want. My problem is, those cards are "misused" by putting 100% load on them continuously. its just a matter of time until they will start rma-ing those cards and unless its obvious, they will get repaired or replaced, which increases cost for the manufacturer, which then will increase price. And why arent all those manufacturers NOT covering ("gaming") cards that are used for mining in case of a defect? at least so far i havent seen any one stating that a company complete covers such use.

fry178:

I never said or stated anything about illegal use. you can throw your card in the grand canyon if thats what you want. My problem is, those cards are "misused" by putting 100% load on them continuously. its just a matter of time until they will start rma-ing those cards and unless its obvious, they will get repaired or replaced, which increases cost for the manufacturer, which then will increase price.

Computer components aren't like people, needing to rest every now and then. Under the proper conditions, they can work for years continuously at full load. My CPUs are at 100% load at all times crunching data (and have been this way for many years) and I also put my GPUs under constant full load, either gaming or running computing apps (and nowadays mining as well). The idea that CPUs/GPUs will wear out quickly under constant full load is a myth, as anyone who runs computing apps will know - in all my years of doing this, I have never once needed to return or RMA anything.

fry178:

I never said or stated anything about illegal use. you can throw your card in the grand canyon if thats what you want. My problem is, those cards are "misused" by putting 100% load on them continuously. its just a matter of time until they will start rma-ing those cards and unless its obvious, they will get repaired or replaced, which increases cost for the manufacturer, which then will increase price. And why arent all those manufacturers NOT covering ("gaming") cards that are used for mining in case of a defect? at least so far i havent seen any one stating that a company complete covers such use.

Who stresses his gpu more? An underclocked, undervolted miner card or an overclocked gamer card?

anthos:

Who stresses his gpu more? An underclocked, undervolted miner card or an overclocked gamer card?

Depends on your point of view. As capacitors are often described in terms of performance hours (see HERE for instance), a miner would still beat a gamer because of 24/7 100% use, which a gamer normally has not. In terms of material degradation in solder paths, the chip itself, power delivery etc. the gamer would stress the card more. Tthe waxing and waning use of a gamer card could be more troublesome from a strictly phsyical, material point of view than constant use inside the component's specs.

Imo...these will not sell well purely based on lack of resale value, i doubt a miner would want to buy a secondhand butchered mining card with not warranty anymore than a gamer would want to buy a thrashed and overclocked to hell gaming card with no warranty.

fry178:

My problem is, those cards are "misused" by putting 100% load on them continuously.

That's a customers decision he/she should have the right to do. If you have a gaming computer in a house with multiple people who have multiple sleep schedules and they all share said computer and all game on that computer as the only thing that happens, which ends up having that computer be used for gaming anywhere between 20-24 hours a day, will YOU have a problem with them "misusing" the product they bought to its full potential continuously? There's 24 hour gaming "stores" around the world that effectively do just that, especially if they are a popular place for gamers to hang out. If a company wants to put a restriction on their warranty stating it only covers a certain amount of hours of heavy use, fine that's their decision, it's their warranty, they can do as they like. That's no different then car companies giving a warranty of something like "5 years or 100K miles" warranty. But again, that was never the discussion. The discussion you brought up was if car manufacturers had to increase the price of their cars due to supply and demand from people buying their cars and using them in non-traditional ways, would i be for that. And yes, i 100%, 1000% would, because it's the customers CHOICE to buy said product and its the customers CHOICE to use said product however they want as long as its legal. It's that simple, i seriously can not make that any more simple.

@D3M1G0D oh sure, 100% load isnt the issue, but cooling. and lots of miners are running more than card, maybe in close config reducing airflow even more. @Aura89 anytime the manuf has to deal with lots of repairs/replacements, they at some point will increase their prices to make up for it. at least i doubt they will accept a smaller bonus. so its part of the reason why prices go up. and the demand right now isnt from gamers (where i would except a bit higher cost), but miners, that are using a GPU (graphic processing unit) and not a MPU, for non-graphic processing. Just look at other businesses. a major cloth/shoe (dont remember exactly) just changed their lifetime warranty to 1y, because of people misusing the policy. and that's without ppl using the product in a way that wasn't "covered" (as in my example for the cars). sure, be happy with increase in price (e.g. cars), and at what point will it be so high that you cant afford to buy one at all? that has nothing to do with choice. you wanna tell me you are willing to by a smart car let's say for 100K? or not buy it (not enough money) and walk (a 3h drive) to work? doubt it...

fry178:

you wanna tell me you are willing to by a smart car let's say for 100K? or not buy it (not enough money) and walk (a 3h drive) to work?

100% i would, because again, no one did anything wrong. Again, it's that simple, i seriously can not make that any more simple.