Tartanleaf

Author: Greg Weir

  • Your Bank Is Calling? Verify the Call Without Trusting It

    Your Bank Is Calling? Verify the Call Without Trusting It

    An unexpected call from your bank may be genuine. It may also be someone using your bank’s name, telephone number and sense of urgency to reach your account.

    Don’t try to settle that question inside the incoming call. Don’t provide information, read back a verification code or use a number supplied by the caller. End the call, choose a contact route you trust independently and ask the bank to verify the claimed activity.

    That sequence works even when the caller sounds professional, knows something about you or appears to be calling from the number on your card.

    Caller ID is not proof

    A familiar name or telephone number on the screen can make a call feel safe. It’s evidence about what your telephone displayed, not proof of who is speaking.

    Fraudsters can alter the caller information shown on a telephone. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada warns that caller ID can be spoofed. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre likewise advises people not to assume that the name or number on the display is accurate.

    The caller may also know your name, bank, partial card information or recent circumstances. Those details can make a story more convincing, but they still don’t establish that the call came from the bank.

    What to do during the incoming call

    You don’t need to accuse the caller or diagnose the situation. Keep the conversation short.

    1. Don’t provide or confirm personal, account or card information.
    2. Don’t read back a code sent by text message, email or an authentication app.
    3. Don’t move money, add a payee, install software or grant remote access.
    4. If useful, note the caller’s claimed name, department, reason for calling and any reference number.
    5. Say that you will contact the bank through its usual channel, then end the call.

    A genuine employee can record the issue or explain how to reach the correct department. A caller who objects to independent verification, threatens consequences or insists that you remain on the line has given you another reason to stop.

    Start a trusted route yourself

    After ending the call, don’t press the callback button and don’t use a telephone number, link or app supplied by the caller.

    Instead, obtain the bank’s contact information from a source you already trust, such as:

    • the telephone number printed on the back of your physical bank or credit card;
    • a recent statement;
    • the bank’s official app that you installed previously; or
    • the bank’s website reached through an address or saved bookmark you established independently.

    Tell the bank that you received an unexpected call and describe what the caller claimed. Ask whether the bank attempted to contact you and whether the account shows the activity discussed.

    The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre’s guidance about the bank-investigator scam recommends calling the number on the back of the debit card. It also advises using a different telephone when possible or waiting before placing the outgoing call. This is particularly useful if you’re uncertain whether the original connection has fully ended.

    Treat unexpected verification codes as evidence

    A code sent by the real bank can still be part of a fraudulent sequence.

    A scammer may already have enough information to begin a sign-in or password-reset attempt. That action causes the real service to send a genuine code to you. The scammer then asks you to read it aloud, claiming that the code will cancel a transaction or confirm your identity.

    The code is real. The person asking for it may not be.

    The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre’s current guidance on protecting one-time passcodes says not to share them and to verify requests through trusted contact information. Its bank-investigator guidance describes the same technique being used to obtain access to bank accounts.

    If you receive a code you didn’t request, don’t read it to an incoming caller. Record the time and contact the institution independently.

    A real bank may still need to speak with you

    The safe response isn’t based on assuming that every call is fraudulent. Banks do contact customers about legitimate account activity.

    Independent verification separates the message from the route that delivered it. If the call was genuine, the bank can continue the conversation after you reach it through a trusted channel. If it was fraudulent, ending the incoming route prevents the caller from controlling the verification process.

    This approach is deliberately slower than reacting inside an urgent call. That’s an advantage.

    If you already shared information or a code

    Contact the actual bank promptly using a trusted route. Describe exactly what happened rather than only saying that you may have been scammed.

    Useful details include:

    • what information you supplied;
    • whether you read back a code;
    • whether you approved a sign-in or authentication prompt;
    • whether you logged in while the caller remained on the line;
    • whether remote-access software was installed;
    • whether money was moved, a payee was added or a payment was approved; and
    • the approximate time of the call and any related messages.

    Ask the bank what it can still secure, stop or investigate. Follow its current compromised-account process. If a password was disclosed or entered through a route controlled by the caller, change it through the real service and check whether it was reused elsewhere.

    Don’t approve another prompt or share another code because someone calls back claiming to repair the incident.

    If remote access or installed software was involved, stop sensitive work on the affected device. Use another trusted device for urgent banking and account recovery when reasonably available.

    If money was moved

    Tell the bank how the transaction occurred:

    • Did you send or approve it after being deceived?
    • Did someone gain access and move it without your approval?
    • Is it pending or complete?
    • Which account, card or payment service was involved?

    Different payment methods and circumstances can have different procedures and limits. Ask what remains possible, keep the case number and record the result. Don’t assume that a transfer can or can’t be recovered before the provider reviews it.

    Be cautious of anyone who later promises guaranteed tracing or recovery in exchange for an advance fee.

    Report the incident

    If you lost money, exposed sensitive information or believe someone attempted to take over an account, preserve relevant messages, dates, transaction details and case numbers.

    The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre accepts reports through its Report Cybercrime and Fraud service and by telephone at 1-888-495-8501. Contact local police as well when money was lost, identity information was used or the circumstances create a safety concern.

    Keep passwords, PINs, complete card numbers and one-time codes out of an ordinary incident log.

    A compact decision card

    Stop. End the call. Verify independently.

    1. Stop: Don’t provide information, codes, money or device access.
    2. Record: Note what the caller claimed without investigating through the call.
    3. End: Hang up.
    4. Choose: Obtain the bank’s contact route independently.
    5. Verify: Ask the bank whether the call and claimed activity were genuine.
    6. Recover: If anything was disclosed or moved, describe the exact action and follow the bank’s current process.

    The most important choice isn’t whether you trust the voice. It’s whether you control the route used to verify it.

    Related Tartanleaf resources

    The free Smart Tech Toolkit provides practical scam checks and recovery paths. Smart Tech for Real People: Scam Safety explains impersonation, pressure tactics, account compromise and recovery in greater depth. The Kindle and paperback editions are available on Amazon.

    Sources checked

    Fraud techniques, provider procedures and reporting routes change. Use the current instructions from the financial institution and public agency responsible for the affected account or report.

  • Bitaxe Community Update: AI, homeHash and Home Mining in a Museum

    Bitaxe Community Update: AI, homeHash and Home Mining in a Museum

    The past few weeks have brought a few different kinds of progress in open-source home mining. The Bitaxe community has been talking about how AI might fit into development, a new exhibition in Dresden puts home mining in a wider historical context, and I’ve been testing a monitoring dashboard of my own.

    AI comes up at Bitaxe Townhall #64

    The October 4 OSMU Bitaxe Townhall included a discussion about using AI in development—and where its limits should be. The episode description frames it as a practical question: AI may be useful in development, but people still need to decide what work to trust it with.

    That seems like the right way to approach it. AI can help with repetitive setup and testing tasks, but it doesn’t take responsibility for understanding the code or deciding whether a change is ready. In an open-source project, maintainers and contributors still need to review what goes in and consider how it might fail.

    The discussion is worth a listen for people following the software side of the Bitaxe ecosystem, even if they aren’t writing firmware themselves.

    Home mining in a museum exhibition

    A new exhibition, Crypto, what?, opened at the Münzkabinett (Coin Cabinet) of the Dresden State Art Collections. It runs from October 3, 2026, to August 29, 2027, and looks at the history of money alongside encryption, digital currency and Bitcoin. Its description includes home-mining devices as part of the exhibition. Exhibition details

    The public description doesn’t identify those devices as Bitaxe hardware, so I wouldn’t call this a Bitaxe exhibit. Still, it’s interesting to see home mining presented as one part of a larger history of money and technology, not only as a competition to produce more hashrate.

    A practical project I’ve been working on: homeHash

    I’ve also been building homeHash, a monitoring dashboard for people running miners on a home network. It can discover Bitaxe miners and show information such as hashrate, temperature, pool connection and uptime, with history stored locally.

    I wanted a way to see what a small group of miners was doing without relying on a cloud dashboard. The project is still in early development. I’ve tested its Bitaxe support with a Gamma 601 running AxeOS 2.15.3 and a GammaTurbo running AxeOS 2.12.0; that isn’t a claim that every model or firmware combination has been tested.

    There are a couple of practical details to know. homeHash is intended for a private network and does not provide login or TLS, so its dashboard shouldn’t be exposed directly to the internet. Miner controls are optional and off by default. The project README has the current setup and security notes.

    The BM1373 remains worth watching

    The Naja Duo is still a useful example of newer ASIC hardware reaching a desktop-sized miner. Solo Satoshi lists its stock performance at about 4.4 TH/s and 42 W, or roughly 9.5 J/TH. Those are vendor figures; results can vary between units and setups. Solo Satoshi’s Naja Duo information

    For me, the interesting part isn’t only the number. It’s how hardware, firmware and monitoring tools fit together. A specification tells you what a product is expected to do; time spent running it tells you more about stability, heat and power use in an actual setup.

    What I’m taking from this update

    Open-source home mining is growing in more than one direction. There is ongoing work on hardware and firmware, more discussion about how development tools should be used, and a growing need for practical ways to understand what miners are doing once they’re running.

    I’ll keep watching those pieces—and I’ll share what I learn as homeHash and the wider Bitaxe ecosystem develop.

    — Greg Weir, Tartanleaf

    Sources and verification notes

  • Clicked a Suspicious Link? Choose the Next Step by What Happened

    Clicked a Suspicious Link? Choose the Next Step by What Happened

    Clicking a suspicious link can produce an immediate wave of worry. It does not, by itself, tell you what happened to your device or account.

    A page that opened and was closed is a different incident from entering a password, approving a sign-in, running a download, granting remote access or sending money. The most useful first question is therefore not, “Was I hacked?” It is:

    What happened after the click?

    Stop using the questionable message while you work through the answer. Do not click its link again, reply to it, call its telephone number or follow new recovery instructions supplied by the same source.

    First, record what you actually did

    Write down the approximate time, the device you used, what appeared on the screen and each action you remember taking.

    Useful facts include whether you:

    • only opened the page;
    • entered a username, password, PIN or personal information;
    • typed or shared a verification code;
    • approved a sign-in, permission or authentication prompt;
    • downloaded, opened or ran a file;
    • installed software, pasted a command or allowed remote support;
    • entered card or banking details;
    • sent money; or
    • supplied an identity number or document.

    You do not need to diagnose the scam before asking for help. Accurate actions are more useful to an account provider, bank, workplace or family helper than a confident label.

    If the message was a text, the free Smart Tech Toolkit guide, How to Tell If a Text Message Is a Scam, walks through common warning signs.

    If you clicked and then stopped

    If the page opened but you did not enter information, approve anything, download or open a file, install software or make a payment, close the page and leave it closed.

    Check the browser’s download list for anything you did not expect. Keep the operating system, browser and security tools current. If something downloaded or the device begins behaving unexpectedly, follow the device branch below.

    A click alone does not prove that an account was taken over. It also does not prove that nothing happened. Watch for actual evidence such as a provider security alert, unfamiliar account activity, an unexpected download or unusual device behaviour.

    Reach any affected service through its official app, a saved bookmark or an address you establish independently. Do not use the original message to check whether the original message was genuine.

    If you entered a password, code or approval

    Treat the affected account as the priority.

    Reach the provider independently and use its current compromised-account or security-review process. Change the affected password if the provider directs you to. If that password was reused, change it on the other affected accounts as well.

    An account is more than its password. Review the layers the provider makes available:

    1. recovery email addresses and telephone numbers;
    2. passwords, passkeys and multi-factor authentication methods;
    3. recent security events;
    4. signed-in devices and sessions; and
    5. connected applications and permissions.

    For an email account, also check for forwarding addresses, filters, rules or delegated access you do not recognize. Email is often a recovery route for other accounts.

    Do not approve another prompt or share another code because a caller says it will secure the account. A real code can still have been generated by an action the caller started.

    If the account belongs to an employer or school, use its established support or security route. Personal recovery instructions may interfere with a managed system or its evidence.

    If you downloaded, installed or granted device access

    Identify the action precisely. Seeing a file in a download list, opening it, running it, installing software, pasting a command and granting remote control are different states.

    Stop sensitive work on the affected device. Use another trusted device for urgent account or banking recovery when reasonably available.

    If remote control or malicious activity appears to be continuing, disconnecting the affected device from the network can interrupt that connection. Record what you observed before removing random applications or settings.

    Use the operating system’s current security tools or another security product you already trust. Update it, run the appropriate scan and record what it identifies, removes or leaves unresolved. Do not install a cleaner suggested by the pop-up, message or person who created the alarm.

    A scan that finds nothing is one piece of evidence. It does not inspect every online session, account permission, recovery setting or file that may already have been copied.

    Do not jump automatically to a factory reset. A reset can be appropriate in some situations, but it also affects files, applications, accessibility tools, recovery keys and the ability to restore the device. Establish the actual state and a recovery plan first.

    If money or card details were involved

    Contact the actual bank, card issuer or payment provider promptly through a known route. Use the number on the card, the provider’s established app or another contact route you already trust.

    Describe the transaction accurately:

    • Did you send or approve the payment after being deceived?
    • Did someone else access the account?
    • Is the payment pending or complete?
    • Which card, account or payment service was involved?
    • Were card details, a PIN, credentials or verification codes exposed?

    Different payment methods and incident types can have different procedures and limits. Ask the provider what remains possible and record the case number and result. Do not assume that a transfer will be reversed or reimbursed.

    Be cautious of anyone who later promises guaranteed tracing, recovery or return of funds for an advance fee.

    If identity information was disclosed

    Record exactly what left your control: a number, a photograph, a document, an account login or some combination of these.

    Exposure is not automatically the same as observed identity misuse. A photographed document is also not always handled the same way as a physically lost document. Some reports can cancel a document, so use the current process of the organization that owns the affected record.

    The correct actions depend on the information, country, province or state, and whether any misuse has actually appeared. Keep Canadian and United States recovery routes separate.

    Preserve enough evidence without reopening the risk

    Keep what may help a provider understand the incident:

    • the original message;
    • relevant screenshots;
    • dates and approximate times;
    • receipts and transaction information;
    • file or application names;
    • provider case numbers; and
    • a short log of the actions you took and their results.

    Do not click the suspicious link again, reopen a risky attachment or reconnect with a questionable support session merely to collect more evidence.

    Keep passwords, PINs, verification codes, full payment-card numbers and recovery phrases out of an ordinary incident log.

    A simple decision card

    1. Stop: Is contact, disclosure, payment or device access still continuing?
    2. Identify: What exactly happened after the click?
    3. Choose the affected state: account, device, money, card or identity information.
    4. Verify independently: Which genuine provider owns that state?
    5. Act and record: What did the provider or security tool change, and what remains uncertain?

    Stopping early is useful. Reporting exactly what happened is useful. Neither requires blame.

    About this guidance

    Greg Weir writes the Smart Tech for Real People series for readers who want practical technology guidance in plain language. Learn more about Greg Weir and browse Books by Greg Weir. This article uses the same calm verification approach: stop, identify what changed, reach the real provider independently and record what follows. For a fuller guide to scam patterns, impersonation, identity theft, and recovery, see Smart Tech for Real People: Scam Safety.

    Sources checked

    Provider controls and reporting routes change. Use the current instructions from the organization responsible for the affected account, payment method or identity record.

  • Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet? Three Checks That Narrow the Problem

    Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet? Three Checks That Narrow the Problem

    A phone showing full Wi-Fi bars beside a computer page that is still loading

    Smart Tech for Real People

    Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet?

    The bars describe the nearby wireless link, not the whole trip. Make three controlled comparisons before replacing equipment or changing several settings.

    Watch “Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet? Try These Three Checks” on YouTube

    The short answer

    Full Wi-Fi bars mean that your device sees a strong signal from nearby Wi-Fi equipment. They do not measure every other part of the connection between your device and a website, video call or download.

    Before replacing the router, keep the task unchanged and make three useful comparisons:

    1. Try the same task on another device in the same room.
    2. Move closer to the router and repeat the same task.
    3. If possible, try the same task over Ethernet.

    What the Wi-Fi bars actually tell you

    Think of the connection as a path:

    The Wi-Fi indicator is evidence about the first short part of that path: the radio connection between your device and the nearby access point or router. It does not report whether the internet provider is congested, whether the router is overloaded or whether the service at the far end is responding normally.

    This is why “full bars” and “slow internet” can both be true at the same time.

    Three comparisons that narrow the problem

    1. Compare another device in the same room

    Use a second phone, tablet or computer in the same room and repeat the same ordinary task. Open the same website, join the same type of call or try the same service.

    • If one device is slow and the other works normally, investigate the slow device first.
    • If both devices are slow, look at something they share: Wi-Fi, the router, the internet connection or the service itself.

    This changes one important variable—the device—while preserving the room, network and task. Microsoft and Apple both recommend checking the connection on another device when distinguishing a device problem from a wider connection or service problem.

    2. Move closer and repeat the task

    Try the same task near the router or access point. If it improves, distance, obstacles, interference or access-point placement may still matter even if the original indicator looked strong. Signal bars are coarse, device-specific summaries rather than a complete performance measurement.

    If it does not improve, do not immediately conclude that Wi-Fi is innocent. The comparison tells you only that moving closer did not change this symptom at this time. Continue along the path.

    3. Try Ethernet if you can

    If a computer and cable are available, connect the computer by Ethernet and repeat the same task.

    • If Ethernet works normally while Wi-Fi remains slow, the local wireless path deserves closer attention.
    • If Ethernet is also slow, new Wi-Fi equipment is less likely to solve this symptom. Check the router, modem or optical terminal, internet service and remote service next.

    Microsoft’s Wi-Fi troubleshooting guidance uses a wired comparison in the same way: a successful Ethernet connection is evidence that the wireless portion of the path is involved.

    Safety note: Do not disconnect or bypass provider equipment unless you understand the provider’s requirements and can restore the original arrangement.

    Use a speed test as evidence, not a verdict

    A speed test is useful, but one number does not describe the whole experience. A connection can have strong download throughput and still perform poorly during a video call because of delay, variation in delay or brief packet loss. A disappointing result can also reflect a busy test server or a temporary condition.

    Record the device and room, Wi-Fi or Ethernet, date and time, test server, download and upload throughput, latency or packet loss when available, and the real task that was failing.

    Repeat the original task after each comparison. Solving the speed test while the call still freezes is not the same as solving the problem.

    Preserve a normal-day baseline

    When the network is working well, record a small set of ordinary observations. You do not need a laboratory report.

    Observation Normal-day note Problem-day note
    Device and room
    Wi-Fi or Ethernet
    Task tested
    Approximate result
    Other devices affected?
    Router or provider warning?

    A normal-day comparison makes a later support call more specific. “The office computer normally completes this task over Ethernet, but today both it and the living-room phone are slow” is more useful than “the Wi-Fi is bad.”

    What not to do first

    Avoid beginning with several unrelated changes:

    • replacing the router;
    • factory-resetting network equipment;
    • changing channels, security modes and DNS at the same time;
    • updating firmware while the network is already unstable; or
    • buying a range extender solely because the bars looked confusing.

    Multiple changes can hide the cause and make it harder to restore the last known-good configuration.

    A compact decision path

    Result What it suggests Next useful question
    One device slow; another normal in the same room Device-specific issue is more likely What differs on the slow device?
    Both devices improve near the router Local Wi-Fi conditions or placement may matter Where does performance begin to change?
    Ethernet normal; Wi-Fi slow Wireless portion of the local path deserves attention Is the issue range, interference, configuration or one access point?
    Ethernet and Wi-Fi both slow The issue may be shared beyond Wi-Fi Is the router, provider link or remote service affected?
    Only one site or service slow Remote-service or route-specific issue is possible Do other services work normally?

    These are working hypotheses, not proof. Use them to select the next observation rather than to jump to a purchase.

    How this fits the Tartanleaf method

    The three checks apply the Tartanleaf Practical-Technology Method: define the task, observe before changing, narrow the failing layer, preserve a known-good state, change one thing and verify the original task again.

    For the complete seven-step process, including stop conditions, a worked home-network example and a printable worksheet, use Controlled, Reversible Troubleshooting.

    Read the practical-technology method
    Explore the Home Networking book

    Related resources

    Sources and scope

    This page explains a diagnostic sequence. It cannot observe your network, identify every cause or guarantee that a particular change will improve service.

    Video published: August 28, 2026
    Article published: 2026-10-05
    Last reviewed: 2026-10-05
    Written and narrated by: Greg Weir
    Publisher: Tartanleaf.com Inc.

    How to cite this page

    Greg Weir, “Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet? Three Checks That Narrow the Problem,” Tartanleaf.com Inc., 2026-10-05. https://www.tartanleaf.com/full-wifi-bars-slow-internet/


  • Bitaxe Community Update: Copyleft, ESP-Miner 2.15.1, HashWatcher and Mining Economics

    Bitaxe Community Update: Copyleft, ESP-Miner 2.15.1, HashWatcher and Mining Economics

    The last few weeks have moved the Bitaxe story forward without producing a single headline that explains everything. The more important developments are spread across licensing, firmware maintenance, monitoring and the economics of running small miners.

    That combination is a sign of a maturing ecosystem. Bitaxe is no longer just one clever board. It is a family of open hardware, several firmware branches, commercial products, community tools and a growing set of questions about what buyers should expect when a product is described as open source.

    Open source is more than publishing a few files

    Bitaxe Townhall #63 focused on open-source principles and copyleft licensing. The timing is useful. Bitaxe and related projects now involve designers, firmware developers, manufacturers, vendors and owners in many countries. As that network grows, the words open source need to mean something specific.

    Publishing a schematic or a firmware archive is not the same as maintaining a reproducible open project. The useful questions are:

    • Is the preferred source available, rather than only a finished binary or fabrication file?
    • Does the repository identify a licence?
    • Are changes to redistributed versions made available under the terms of that licence?
    • Can someone other than the original seller understand, repair and support the exact board revision?
    • Are the product name, hardware design and firmware being described separately and accurately?

    Copyleft licences are intended to preserve downstream freedom. A company can manufacture and sell an open design, but it cannot quietly take the community’s work, distribute a modified version and ignore the licence obligations that made that work available in the first place.

    For an owner, this is practical rather than philosophical. Good source files and documentation make it more likely that a board can be repaired, that firmware support can continue and that a product will not become dependent on one seller.

    The Gamma Hex 1300 repository, for example, identifies the hardware as a six-chip BM1370 design and publishes it under the strongly reciprocal CERN Open Hardware Licence. That does not by itself prove production maturity, but it makes the design and the terms under which it can be reused much clearer.

    ESP-Miner 2.15.1 is a maintenance release worth noticing

    The August 30 update covered the larger changes in ESP-Miner 2.15.0, including unified firmware and mDNS support. Since then, ESP-Miner 2.15.1 has become the current stable release.

    Version 2.15.1 is a focused maintenance update. Its published fixes include:

    • correcting Swarm IP discovery;
    • improving WPA2/WPA3 compatibility;
    • preventing reconnect storms caused by slow clients; and
    • clarifying the asset message on the update page.

    Those are not glamorous features, but network discovery and reconnection behaviour matter on a miner expected to run unattended.

    The same firmware advice still applies: do not update simply because a larger version number exists. Record your pool, network, voltage and frequency settings. Confirm support for the exact board revision. Download firmware from the official release page, and update one miner first if you operate several.

    There is also an ESP-Miner 2.15.2 release candidate. It adds BM1372/BM1373 driver support and colour-display support for the Naja Duo and Gamma Hex, along with several fixes. It is explicitly labelled a pre-release intended for testing rather than stability. That distinction should be taken seriously. Owners who depend on a stable miner should normally remain on the stable release unless they have a specific reason to test a release candidate and a recovery path if it fails.

    Gamma Hex moves from a repository toward firmware support

    I introduced the Gamma Hex 1300 in the previous update, so it should not be treated as a brand-new announcement. The useful change is that firmware support is beginning to catch up with the hardware repository.

    The design remains a six-chip BM1370 board with a 12-volt input, ESP32-S3 controller, colour display, adjustable voltage regulation and dual ASIC-temperature monitoring. The repository is still small and does not publish a hardware release. The addition of display support in the 2.15.2 release candidate is evidence of active integration, not evidence that the model is ready for every buyer.

    This is a good example of the stages an open miner passes through:

    1. A design appears in a public repository.
    2. Contributors review and revise the hardware.
    3. Firmware learns to identify and operate the board.
    4. Builders produce working units.
    5. Owners accumulate useful experience with power, cooling and reliability.

    Those stages can overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A repository and a firmware pull request are encouraging; production availability and field experience are different milestones.

    HashWatcher offers a broader view of several miners

    HashWatcher is a third-party Android application that supports Bitaxe and NerdQaxe++ miners alongside several larger-miner platforms. Its listing describes fleet monitoring, temperature alerts, charts, reports and custom overclock controls for supported small miners.

    This addresses a real limitation of browser-based dashboards. AxeOS is convenient when working with one miner. It becomes less convenient when every unit has a separate address and you want to see at a glance which miner is hot, offline or underperforming.

    The developer says miner data is fetched directly from the devices and that no third-party cloud is required. The Google Play data-safety declaration currently says that the app does not collect or share data. Those are useful statements, but they do not remove the need for normal care.

    Before allowing any monitoring application to change miner settings:

    • confirm that you have the correct app and developer;
    • review its permissions and privacy information;
    • begin with monitoring before using tuning controls;
    • keep a record of known-good voltage and frequency settings; and
    • remember that a convenient control can still request an unsafe setting.

    Remote visibility is useful. It should not replace local records, temperature limits or a recovery plan.

    Mining economics continue to favour efficiency

    Hashrate Index’s September 14 roundup placed spot hashprice at about US$39.25 per PH/s per day. It reported a seven-day network-hashrate average near 943 EH/s and estimated a 5.26% difficulty increase for September 19. Its six-month forward market was pricing average hashprice around US$36.92 per PH/s per day.

    These figures are dated observations, not forecasts that should be treated as certain. Difficulty, Bitcoin price, transaction fees and network hashrate all move.

    They also need to be interpreted carefully for a Bitaxe. Hashprice is useful for comparing expected mining revenue at scale. A small solo miner has a very different experience: most days produce no payout at all, while a successful block is a rare event. The expected value can be estimated, but the actual result is highly variable.

    The broader lesson is still valid. Hashrate affects the probability of finding work, while joules per terahash determine how much electricity is required to sustain that probability. Hashrate Index’s fleet figures showed substantially more revenue per unit of energy for equipment below 14 J/TH than for less efficient groups. Those are fleet-level comparisons, not promises for a desktop miner, but they explain why efficiency matters as network conditions become less forgiving.

    For many Bitaxe owners, the objective is learning, supporting open mining, experimenting with heat reuse or taking a very small chance at a solo block—not earning dependable income. A good purchase decision begins by stating that objective honestly.

    What I would do now

    For an existing owner, the mid-September priorities are straightforward:

    1. Treat ESP-Miner 2.15.1 as the current stable maintenance release and read its notes before updating.
    2. Treat 2.15.2 as test firmware until a stable release replaces it.
    3. Verify the hardware repository, licence and exact board revision when evaluating an “open-source” product.
    4. Use fleet-monitoring tools as a convenience layer, not as a substitute for safe settings and local records.
    5. Compare miners by efficiency, power, cooling, firmware support and maturity—not hashrate alone.

    The Bitaxe ecosystem is becoming more capable, but also more specialized. That makes careful documentation more important, not less. The best projects will be the ones that combine transparent licensing, reproducible hardware, maintainable firmware and honest descriptions of what is ready today.

    I will continue updating the Bitcoin Mining with Bitaxe Updates page as stable firmware and production experience catch up with the announcements.

    For a practical guide to setup, tuning, monitoring and recovery, see Bitcoin Mining with Bitaxe. The free Bitaxe Owner’s Maintenance and Troubleshooting Pack provides printable baseline and troubleshooting worksheets.

    — Greg Weir, Tartanleaf

    Sources and verification notes

  • Bitaxe Community Update: Naja Duo, ESP-Miner 2.15.0 and the BM1373 Generation

    Bitaxe Community Update: Naja Duo, ESP-Miner 2.15.0 and the BM1373 Generation

    The last two weeks have moved the open-source home-mining story forward on two fronts at once. New BM1373-based hardware is moving from prototypes and announcements toward products people can order, while ESP-Miner 2.15.0 changes the way Bitaxe firmware updates work.

    There is also a useful caution running through all of this. A product announcement, an open hardware repository, firmware support and something you can buy today are four different things. They sometimes arrive together. Often they do not.

    That distinction matters more as the Bitaxe family expands.

    The Naja Duo brings BM1373 to a Bitaxe product

    The headline hardware announcement is the Bitaxe Naja Duo 1201, launched by Solo Satoshi at the end of August. It uses two BM1373 ASICs, the newer generation of silicon associated with Bitmain’s S23 machines.

    Solo Satoshi lists the Naja Duo at about 4.4 TH/s and 42 watts at its default settings, or roughly 9.5 joules per terahash. If those numbers hold across production units, that is a substantial efficiency improvement over BM1370-based desktop miners.

    The vendor also reports an 8 TH/s overclock at about 92 watts and much higher results under experimental liquid cooling. Those figures are interesting, but I would treat them as demonstrations of headroom rather than recommended operating points. Higher clock speed, voltage and temperature all change the reliability equation. A quiet, efficient miner that runs consistently is usually more useful than a benchmark that cannot be sustained.

    Other practical changes include individual chip-temperature monitoring, a larger colour display, an XT30 power connection and cooling designed for a two-chip board. The product is described as running the mainline ESP-Miner and AxeOS stack.

    There is one naming wrinkle worth knowing. The older bitaxeorg/bitaxeNaja repository currently describes an untested two-chip BM1340 prototype, not the newly announced BM1373 Naja Duo. I have not found a corresponding BM1373 hardware repository in the Bitaxe organization as of August 30. That does not make the product claim false, but it does mean buyers should not assume that every reference to “Naja” describes the same board.

    My practical advice is simple: verify the exact model number, firmware, warranty, power supply and published design files before ordering. For a newly launched model, I would also allow time for production owners to report thermals, stability and real wall-power measurements.

    NerdAxe Gaia offers a single-chip route

    The NerdAxe Gaia approaches BM1373 from the other direction. It is a single-chip desktop miner advertised at roughly 2.4 to 2.6 TH/s and about 25 watts, depending on the vendor listing. European listings currently describe it as a pre-order product with September shipping.

    That makes it an interesting low-power entry into the new silicon generation, but there is an important firmware distinction: Gaia is part of the NerdAxe family. Its BM1373 support is in the ESP-Miner-NerdQAxePlus project, not the main Bitaxe ESP-Miner release.

    The interfaces share a family resemblance, but firmware is hardware-specific. Do not choose a firmware file because the dashboard looks familiar. Use the release and flashing instructions for the exact board and revision you own. Early Gaia buyers should also expect its BM1373 support to be in the 1.1.0 pre-release line rather than the older stable branch.

    ESP-Miner 2.15.0 simplifies Bitaxe updates

    For existing Bitaxe owners, the most broadly useful development is ESP-Miner 2.15.0, released August 21.

    The largest change is unified firmware. AxeOS is now embedded in esp-miner.bin, so the normal update no longer requires a separate www.bin upload. After installing 2.15.0, refresh the browser page so it loads the updated interface.

    The release also adds mDNS support. On a network that supports it, you can reach a miner by its hostname—for example, bitaxe.local—instead of first looking up its IP address. This is convenient, although keeping a record of the IP address or DHCP reservation is still worthwhile when troubleshooting.

    Other changes include better undervoltage information, total uptime and hash counts, multi-line charts, a restart confirmation, fixes for several memory and WebSocket problems, and further Stratum V2 work. The Stratum changes include larger frames, better handling of fractional pool difficulty and an optional per-pool authentication requirement.

    This is a meaningful release, but “meaningful” does not mean “install immediately on every stable miner.” Before updating:

    1. Record your pool, network, frequency and voltage settings.
    2. Confirm that 2.15.0 supports your exact board revision.
    3. Download firmware only from the official ESP-Miner release page.
    4. Update one miner first if you operate several.
    5. Leave it at known-good settings while you confirm temperatures, accepted shares and stability.

    If your miner is stable and you do not need the new features, waiting for more field experience is also a reasonable decision. I explain that decision process in Should You Update Bitaxe Firmware?.

    OSMU adds the Gamma Hex to the hardware conversation

    The item I found on OSMU that was not in my initial notes is the Bitaxe Gamma Hex 1300. Its new Bitaxe organization repository describes a six-chip BM1370 design using an ESP32-S3, a colour display and ESP-Miner.

    This belongs in the “watch the project” category for now. The repository is new, has only a small number of commits and does not yet publish a release. That is enough to establish that the design exists; it is not enough to treat it like a mature, widely available model.

    The distinction is important. Open repositories let the community inspect and improve a design early. They are evidence of development, not automatically evidence of production readiness.

    A more useful way to compare the growing model list

    The market is becoming harder to describe with a single list of names. A better comparison asks four questions:

    • Which ASIC and how many chips does the board use?
    • Is the hardware design published, and where?
    • Which firmware project supports the exact board revision?
    • Is it a mature product, a new production model, a pre-order or an experimental design?

    By that measure, the late-August picture is clearer:

    • Naja Duo 1201: newly launched two-chip BM1373 product; attractive vendor specifications, with independent production experience still to come.
    • NerdAxe Gaia: single-chip BM1373 product in pre-order or early-shipping status; uses the NerdQAxePlus firmware family.
    • Gamma Hex 1300: newly published six-chip BM1370 open design; still early in its repository life.
    • Existing Gamma, Supra, Ultra, Max and UltraHex designs: established reference points, although actual retail availability varies by model and vendor.

    The important change is not simply that miners are getting faster. New-generation ASICs are reaching desk-sized, open-source hardware, while firmware and product families are becoming more specialized. That creates more choice, but it also puts more responsibility on the buyer to match the model, firmware and documentation correctly.

    I will continue updating the Bitcoin Mining with Bitaxe Updates page as production experience catches up with the announcements.

    For a practical guide to setup, tuning, monitoring and recovery, see Bitcoin Mining with Bitaxe. The free Bitaxe Owner’s Maintenance and Troubleshooting Pack provides printable baseline and troubleshooting worksheets.

    — Greg Weir, Tartanleaf

    Sources and verification notes

  • What a Local Lobby Display Changed at a Nova Scotia Inn

    What a Local Lobby Display Changed at a Nova Scotia Inn

    At a busy inn, many front-desk questions are simple but time-sensitive. Guests want the Wi-Fi password, the weather forecast or the menu. Before Open Lobby Board was installed at Auberge Gisele’s Inn in Baddeck, staff generally supplied that information verbally.

    I installed the board in the lobby and had it running around the end of June 2026. It puts commonly requested information on a lobby display, runs on a Raspberry Pi and remains under the property’s control. Management can update it from the trusted local network without maintaining a cloud account or paying for another subscription.

    The useful features were the ordinary ones

    It would be easy to judge a lobby display by the number of features it offers. The more useful question is which information guests actually look for.

    Wahab Khan, General Manager, identified three practical items: the Wi-Fi password, the weather and the menu. Of those, the clearest observed change involved the weather. He reports that weather questions at the front desk have “really gone down.”

    That is a modest result, but it is also a useful one. The board does not need to replace the front desk or automate every interaction. It only needs to make routine information visible enough that guests can find it without waiting to ask.

    What the evidence does not show

    The board also includes a menu QR code. Gisele’s keeps a physical menu at the front desk, and guests usually refer to it. As a result, this installation does not show that the QR code reduced requests for paper menus.

    Khan believes the QR code would be useful where a paper copy was not readily available. That is a reasonable use case, but it is different from an observed result. The distinction matters in a practical case study.

    Easy updates and no reported reliability burden

    A display is only useful if the information stays current. Khan describes the board as easy to read and extremely easy for management to edit. He also reports that it has been “extremely reliable” and has had “zero issues.”

    Those observations support the project’s original design priorities: keep the interface straightforward, keep routine changes simple and avoid turning an information screen into another service that requires continuing administration.

    Local control is part of the value

    Open Lobby Board is designed for a Raspberry Pi connected to a display on a trusted, non-routable local network. The display has no subscription requirement or advertising service and is managed locally. Weather information comes from Open-Meteo, an external service. It is an open-source example project rather than a managed product, and it should not be exposed directly to the public Internet.

    For a property in a high-volume tourism town, Khan sees value in any practical way to reduce repeated questions. The Gisele’s installation suggests that the strongest case for a lobby board may not be a long feature list. It may simply be dependable access to the few pieces of information guests ask for most often.

    About Open Lobby Board

    I developed Open Lobby Board and released it through Tartanleaf.com Inc. as a free, open-source community project under the MIT License. It is provided as an example for technically comfortable operators, not as a hosted or supported commercial service.

    View Open Lobby Board and its setup documentation on GitHub, or see it alongside Tartanleaf’s other resources on the Tartanleaf Tools page.

  • Bitaxe Community Update: WallAxe, Firmware and BM1373 – Mid-August 2026

    Bitaxe Community Update: WallAxe, Firmware and BM1373 – Mid-August 2026

    Bitaxe Townhall #62 put WallAxe at the centre of the latest OSMU discussion. Gio joined the town hall to explain a project that combines a Bitaxe and its power supply in a compact enclosure that plugs directly into a wall outlet.

    The idea is easy to understand. A normal Bitaxe installation has a board, a separate power supply, a cable and some way to keep the assembly stable and clear of obstructions. WallAxe aims to turn those pieces into something closer to a small appliance.

    That sounds like a packaging change, but it raises useful questions about where the Bitaxe ecosystem is going.

    WallAxe and the next stage of home mining

    WallAxe is best understood as a conversion and packaging project, not a new mining ASIC. It builds around existing Bitaxe hardware and tries to remove several points of friction for a new owner – choosing a suitable supply, managing the cable and mounting the equipment neatly.

    For an experienced builder, those jobs are manageable. For someone buying a first small miner, they are among the least polished parts of the experience. A well-designed integrated unit could make a Bitaxe easier to place and easier to explain without changing what the board does.

    The trade-off is safety. Once a product connects directly to household mains power, enclosure design, insulation, heat, clearances, strain relief and safe servicing matter more than appearance. A compact enclosure also has less room to move heat away from the miner and its power electronics.

    The practical test for WallAxe will therefore be whether it can preserve the openness and repairability that make Bitaxe interesting while meeting the expectations people reasonably have for a mains-connected appliance. Until the design is mature and independently evaluated, it should be treated as a developing open-hardware project rather than a finished consumer product.

    ESP-Miner 2.14.2 remains the current verified release

    The latest verified ESP-Miner release remains version 2.14.2, released on July 8. Its published changes include a fix for a use-after-free race condition and a correction to frequency fallback during self-test.

    That does not mean every owner should update immediately. Firmware work is a maintenance decision, not a reflex.

    Before changing firmware, record:

    • the Bitaxe model and hardware revision;
    • the current firmware version;
    • pool and network settings;
    • normal temperature, fan speed and hash rate;
    • any recurring errors or recovery behaviour.

    Then read the release notes, confirm that the image matches the hardware, keep a recovery path available and change one thing at a time. A baseline makes it possible to tell whether an update improved reliability or merely changed the symptoms.

    BM1373 parts are becoming easier to obtain

    BM1373 has also moved a little closer to practical experimentation. TinyChipHub is advertising individual BM1373 chips at US$69.99. The seller describes about 2.5 TH/s as a reference point for sustained operation and much higher figures as overclocking tests with sharply increased power use.

    Those are vendor claims, not independent finished-device benchmarks. The parts are also described as coming mainly from dismantled Antminer S23 Hydro equipment, which adds another variable for designers and buyers.

    The important development is not the headline hash rate. It is that independent builders can now obtain parts for prototypes in small quantities. Turning a bare ASIC into a dependable miner still requires board design, voltage regulation, cooling, firmware support and a supply chain that can deliver chips of consistent quality.

    BM1373 may support a higher-performance generation of open miners, but a seller’s chip-level number should not be treated as the expected performance of a future Bitaxe or NerdQAxe product.

    A broader range of open miners

    The official Bitaxe organization now includes projects such as the dual-chip Gamma Turbo and the multi-chip Gamma Hex alongside the established single-chip boards. WallAxe explores a different direction – not simply more hash rate, but a cleaner physical installation.

    That variety is a sign of a maturing ecosystem. Open home mining is separating into several practical categories:

    • low-power single-chip boards for learning and experimentation;
    • multi-chip designs for more hash rate on a desk or shelf;
    • display and interface projects that make monitoring easier;
    • packaging and power projects intended to simplify installation;
    • next-generation ASIC experiments whose real performance is still being established.

    For an owner, the useful question is not which design has the largest number in a listing. It is which design fits the available power, cooling, noise tolerance, network and maintenance skills.

    What to watch next

    Three things are worth following over the next few weeks:

    1. Whether WallAxe publishes enough design and safety detail for meaningful community review.
    2. Whether ESP-Miner reliability reports settle around 2.14.2 or lead to another maintenance release.
    3. Whether BM1373 prototypes produce repeatable efficiency and thermal results outside vendor demonstrations.

    The direction remains encouraging. Bitaxe is becoming more than a single board. It is an open ecosystem of hardware, firmware, enclosures, power systems, monitoring tools and operating practices. The next step is proving that added convenience and performance can arrive without giving up safety, transparency or repairability.

    For a practical owner workflow, see Bitcoin Mining with Bitaxe and the free Bitaxe Owner’s Maintenance and Troubleshooting Pack.

    – Greg Weir, Tartanleaf

  • Four Practical Resources for Understanding Your Home Network

    Four Practical Resources for Understanding Your Home Network

    Home networking tends to become complicated at exactly the wrong moment. A video call starts breaking up. A television buffers in one room but works in another. A new router presents a screen full of unfamiliar settings. Someone changes three things at once, the problem appears to go away, and nobody is quite sure which change helped.

    The difficulty is not always the technology itself. It is often knowing which question to ask first.

    Is the internet connection failing, or only the Wi-Fi? Is the problem limited to one device? Is the router reachable? Is DNS working? Is there another router between your network and the internet? Would moving an access point help, or would that simply move the weak area somewhere else?

    I have been working on four related resources for those situations: the book Smart Tech for Real People: Home Networking, the free Home Network Baseline and Recovery Pack, the free Smart Tech Toolkit and the open-source HomeNetCheck application. They overlap, but they are not four versions of the same thing. Each serves a different purpose.

    Watch: Which Part of Your Home Network Is Failing?

    The book explains the system

    Home Networking is for readers who want to understand the network they already have without having to become network engineers.

    It begins with the path into the home: the modem or optical network terminal, the router, switches, Ethernet and Wi-Fi. It then looks at coverage, mesh systems, guest networks, smart devices, VPNs, provider equipment, security and troubleshooting.

    The aim is not to supply a single ideal configuration. Homes, budgets and internet services differ too much for that. The more useful goal is to understand what each part does, where a failure might occur and which changes are worth trying.

    That matters because troubleshooting works better when changes are small and reversible. Replacing every piece of equipment may appear decisive, but it can be expensive and may conceal the original cause. Checking one part of the signal path at a time is slower for a few minutes and usually faster overall. The same evidence-first process is set out in the standalone guide Controlled, Reversible Troubleshooting.

    The Kindle and paperback editions of Smart Tech for Real People: Home Networking are available through Amazon. The paperback can also be ordered through bookstores and libraries supplied by Ingram; ask for the title and author or use paperback ISBN 978-1-997095-02-6.

    The pack preserves a useful baseline

    The free Home Network Baseline and Recovery Pack is a printable companion for recording what normally works before the next outage. It helps you identify important equipment and tasks, map useful connection paths, and preserve the details you will need when something changes.

    The pack is an original companion rather than an excerpt from the book, and it is useful on its own. It is delivered by email with occasional practical home-networking updates. HomeNetCheck and Tartanleaf’s other existing tools remain freely available without subscribing.

    The Toolkit helps organize decisions

    The Smart Tech Toolkit is a free browser-based companion. It includes a Network Helper, privacy and device planners, safety and scam checks, and practical guides.

    The Network Helper does not pretend that a few answers can replace observation or testing. Its purpose is to help narrow the situation and suggest a sensible next step. The other tools address decisions that often surround home technology: what information a device collects, which security questions matter and what to check before trusting an unfamiliar message or request.

    No account is required. Answers remain on the user’s device, and the Toolkit works offline once it has been visited. It is intended to be something people can open when they need it, without first creating another profile or handing over more information.

    HomeNetCheck examines symptoms

    HomeNetCheck is different from the Toolkit. It is a downloadable, open-source desktop application for Windows, macOS and Linux—not a browser application.

    It checks common parts of the network path, including router reachability, DNS, double NAT, latency, packet loss, internet speed and the Wi-Fi information made available by the operating system. It then presents the results in a plain-language report.

    HomeNetCheck does not change router settings or attempt to repair the network automatically. That restraint is deliberate. A diagnostic application should help someone understand what it observed before it starts altering the system being examined.

    The report can identify symptoms and point toward useful questions. The book provides the background needed to interpret those symptoms, the pack preserves a baseline for comparison, and the Toolkit helps organize the next decision. In practical terms:

    • The pack can record which devices and tasks worked normally before the problem began.
    • HomeNetCheck can show that DNS lookups are failing.
    • The book explains what DNS does and why that failure can make an otherwise working connection appear broken.
    • The Toolkit can help the user work through the next checks without changing several unrelated settings.

    No single resource can diagnose every network, but the combination offers a more useful path than random experimentation.

    Why I kept them separate

    It would have been possible to put every checklist, diagnostic and explanation into one large application. I do not think that would have made the result easier to use.

    A book is good at building understanding and showing how ideas connect. A printable pack is useful for preserving a baseline and working through recovery. A browser-based toolkit supports short, structured decisions. A desktop application can inspect information that a normal webpage cannot safely or consistently access.

    Keeping those roles separate also makes the limitations clearer. The pack does not inspect the network. The Toolkit does not claim to inspect it either. HomeNetCheck does not teach the whole subject, and the book cannot measure what is happening on a particular computer at a particular moment.

    Together, they support a simple sequence:

    1. Record a baseline while the network is working.
    2. Observe the problem carefully.
    3. Check which part of the path appears to be failing.
    4. Understand what that part does.
    5. Make one small, reversible change.
    6. Test again before changing something else.

    That sequence is less dramatic than replacing a router or resetting everything to factory defaults. It is also more likely to reveal what was actually wrong.

    For a focused example of this approach, see Full Wi-Fi Bars but Slow Internet? Three Checks That Narrow the Problem.

    Available now

    Smart Tech for Real People: Home Networking is available in Kindle and paperback editions. Its book page provides the localized Amazon link and bookstore or library ordering information.

    Get the free Home Network Baseline and Recovery Pack. It is delivered by email and is complete and useful without buying the book.

    The Smart Tech Toolkit is free to use in a browser, and HomeNetCheck is free and open-source software for Windows, macOS and Linux.

    Other Smart Tech for Real People titles and their current publication status are listed on the series page.

    If you use the pack, Toolkit or HomeNetCheck and find something unclear, I would be interested in knowing where you hesitated or what you expected to happen next. That sort of feedback is especially useful because it identifies the explanations that still need work.

  • Bitaxe Community Update: A Gamma Finds Block 957,382

    Bitaxe Community Update: A Gamma Finds Block 957,382

    A palm-sized Gamma found a full Bitcoin block, ESP-Miner moved into the 2.14 series, and multi-chip open-hardware miners continued to stretch what a desktop rig can do. Here is what matters—and what still belongs in the “wait and see” column.

    A Bitaxe Gamma finds block 957,382

    On July 9, a miner using a single Bitaxe Gamma through Public Pool found Bitcoin block 957,382. The block paid 3.1382 BTC, including the 3.125 BTC subsidy and transaction fees. The block itself can be checked independently on mempool.space, while coverage of the miner and hardware identified the device as a Gamma running at roughly 995 GH/s to 1 TH/s. The reward was worth about US$200,000 at the time.

    The detail that caught most headlines was the contrast: a miner costing roughly US$150 found a full block after about eight hours online. It is a wonderful result, but it needs the right interpretation. Eight hours was the winner’s actual runtime, not the expected time to find a block. At that hashrate, a solo block remains an extraordinarily rare event.

    I still think “lottery miner” is a useful shorthand, provided we do not let the metaphor turn into a promise. A Bitaxe does real work and submits real shares to the Bitcoin network. It also gives its owner a very small chance of finding a block. The July win is proof that the chance is not zero; it is not evidence of predictable income.

    What makes the story worthwhile is not simply the payout. A small open-source miner became part of Bitcoin’s permanent history. That is a remarkable outcome for hardware that can sit on a desk.

    ESP-Miner is now in the 2.14 series

    The firmware picture also changed this summer. The current production release listed by the project is ESP-Miner 2.14.2, issued in July. It follows the much larger 2.14.0 release, which added a customizable AxeOS dashboard, better mobile presentation, downloadable logs, pause and resume controls, a WebSocket API, and Stratum V2 support. The 2.14.2 maintenance release fixes a race condition and improves frequency fallback during self-test.

    This is not an emergency update story. It is a reminder to check the release notes, confirm that the image matches your board, and use the project’s documented update path. If a miner is stable, there is no prize for being the first person to install every release. Back up or record your settings, avoid interrupting power during an update, and leave experimental builds to situations where you are prepared to troubleshoot them.

    BM1373: interesting, but not yet a Bitaxe product

    There is growing community interest in Bitmain’s newer BM1373 ASIC, with discussion centred on higher per-chip hashrate and the possibility of a future generation of compact miners. For now, I would resist attaching firm specifications or shipping dates to a future Bitaxe. The official Bitaxe organization’s published hardware list still identifies the Gamma and Gamma Turbo as BM1370 designs; it does not list a generally available BM1373 Bitaxe.

    That does not mean nothing is happening. Chips are appearing in the broader home-mining conversation, and open-hardware developers are clearly exploring what comes next. But chip availability, board design, power delivery, cooling, firmware support, and manufacturability all have to come together before an interesting ASIC becomes a dependable product.

    The practical consequence may arrive before the new hardware does: anticipation of a next generation can soften prices on current Gamma boards. A discounted BM1370 miner does not suddenly become obsolete. For learning, experimenting, running a node-adjacent appliance, or taking a very long solo chance, the current hardware still does exactly what it did before.

    NerdQAxe++ shows what more chips—and more power—can do

    The NerdQAxe++ is not a Bitaxe, but it belongs in the same open-hardware home-mining conversation. A four-chip BM1370 model gives builders another way to balance hashrate, heat, noise, and power on a desktop.

    Vendor figures vary by revision and cooling configuration. TinyChipHub describes its NerdQAxe++ Remastered at about 5.2 TH/s and 80 W in its normal configuration, with its own internal testing reaching about 6 TH/s at 100–110 W. Solo Satoshi reports that Revision 7 runs at roughly 4.8 TH/s and 69.5 W at stock settings, with substantially more overclocking headroom after a redesign of the power-delivery system.

    Those are vendor measurements rather than universal guarantees. They are also a useful illustration of the engineering trade-off. More frequency and more chips can produce more hashrate, but they also require better power delivery and cooling. The impressive number is not always the setting you would choose for quiet, efficient, continuous operation.

    Multi-device setups add another possibility. Several small miners can point at the same pool or be managed as a small home fleet. That makes the Bitaxe useful not only as a standalone solo miner, but also as a modular building block. It does not improve the economics by magic; it simply lets the owner add hashrate in manageable steps.

    The larger lesson

    The Gamma block win will understandably receive most of the attention. My larger takeaway is that open-source home mining continues to mature around it. Firmware is becoming more capable, multi-chip designs are becoming more refined, and the next ASIC generation is close enough to provoke serious discussion.

    None of that changes the basic advice: buy a small miner because you want to learn, experiment, support open hardware, or participate directly in proof-of-work—not because a headline makes the payout look repeatable.

    Sometimes, however, the long shot lands. In July 2026, one Bitaxe Gamma proved it.