6 ms·

There's also the fact that a few days ago Nvidia released a signed driver that disabled the restrictions [1] _by accident_. But now that the signed driver is ou

There's also the fact that a few days ago Nvidia released a signed driver that disabled the restrictions [1] _by accident_. But now that the signed driver is out, anyone can just revert to that at any time and mine whatever they want. Fantastic failure to a flawed endeavour. [1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333544/nvidia-rtx-3060-ethereum-mining-rate-limit-unlock-driver https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/16/22333544/nvidia-rtx-3060-...

Shadonototro 6y ago
i'm pretty sure they did this to prevent a class-action lawsuit limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal NVIDIA announced this limit prior to public availability and it made widespread news, meaning everyone who bought a 3060 could reasonably be expected to know about the restriction. No chance for a class action.
  - belltaco 6y ago
    Plus Nvidia can offer a full refund of the MSRP, fully knowing that even used cards go for more.
  - Shadonototro 6y ago
    source?
    - mschuster91 6y ago
      A month ago on HN, for example (a couple dupes were merged into that iirc): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26180260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26180260
  - nikanj 6y ago
    I'm quite surprised if there isn't a binding arbitration clause somewhere, which blocks class actions
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    > could reasonably be expected to know I’d wager I know about 1% or less of how restricted 99% of what I buy is. There’s probably some term or condition on my water bill saying I can’t export it to Cuba or use it to moderate nuclear fission.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      It's a GPU. It does GPU stuff, about as well as can be expected. If you had very specific numbers in mind, you must have been looking at benchmarks, and all the benchmarks were equally locked and mining benchmarks certainly would have mentioned it.
    - salawat 6y ago
      There is not. Right of first sale. Once it's sold it's done. That's why places are so eager to add microprocessors to everything. With the right cryptography, you can lock the user out of tampering with anything.
- etrautmann 6y ago
  I’m curious how this is different from shutting down a paid service or removing software features. Seems like there’s a large grey area.
- chunkyks 6y ago
  I have my cheque from Sony for OtherOS class action sitting on my desk. The cheque is dated 09/16/2019 [nine years after OtherOS was disabled via firmware], and it's for three dollars and two cents.
  - aeruder 6y ago
    Still makes me mad. I bought a device that plays PS3 games and runs Linux and then Sony said I have to choose.
floatingatoll 6y ago
They can just revoke the signature, right?
- __s 6y ago
  Only if network access can access revocation
- SilverRed 6y ago
  They can't revoke the math that makes the signature valid. As long as the card is unable to get a network connection to work out the driver is revoked, there is no going back on this.
- dheera 6y ago
  Even if they do some CA-side revoking crap you could just have your system not check, or revert to a previous state in which the signature was not revoked.
  - astrange 6y ago
    They can adopt online signatures, it's not hard to prevent rolling back an install like that. But you now need an internet connection at update time.
    - dheera 6y ago
      I can always restore my hard disk to an earlier image, or reinstall the driver from offline sources and lock down updates with apt-get hold
      - astrange 6y ago
        You can't do that to an iPhone (or a Mac with full boot security enabled) and they could do the same thing if they wanted.
        dheera 6y ago
paulmd 6y ago
That's what this article is about, yeah, NVIDIA is confirming they screwed up. It also appears the VBIOS on MSI's 3060 cards didn't include it either, I'm not 100% clear but I'm guessing you need both here. I've seen other discussions where people report flashing it on EVGA cards and then it increases performance to the expected levels.
peanut_worm 6y ago
Makes me wonder if it was intentional. They make more money from miners buying up all their cards, no?

Shadonototro 6y ago

i'm pretty sure they did this to prevent a class-action lawsuit limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal

mschuster91 6y ago
> limiting a product after a purchase, i'm pretty sure this is illegal NVIDIA announced this limit prior to public availability and it made widespread news, meaning everyone who bought a 3060 could reasonably be expected to know about the restriction. No chance for a class action.
- belltaco 6y ago
  Plus Nvidia can offer a full refund of the MSRP, fully knowing that even used cards go for more.
- Shadonototro 6y ago
  source?
  - mschuster91 6y ago
    A month ago on HN, for example (a couple dupes were merged into that iirc): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26180260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26180260
- nikanj 6y ago
  I'm quite surprised if there isn't a binding arbitration clause somewhere, which blocks class actions
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  > could reasonably be expected to know I’d wager I know about 1% or less of how restricted 99% of what I buy is. There’s probably some term or condition on my water bill saying I can’t export it to Cuba or use it to moderate nuclear fission.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's a GPU. It does GPU stuff, about as well as can be expected. If you had very specific numbers in mind, you must have been looking at benchmarks, and all the benchmarks were equally locked and mining benchmarks certainly would have mentioned it.
  - salawat 6y ago
    There is not. Right of first sale. Once it's sold it's done. That's why places are so eager to add microprocessors to everything. With the right cryptography, you can lock the user out of tampering with anything.
etrautmann 6y ago
I’m curious how this is different from shutting down a paid service or removing software features. Seems like there’s a large grey area.
chunkyks 6y ago
I have my cheque from Sony for OtherOS class action sitting on my desk. The cheque is dated 09/16/2019 [nine years after OtherOS was disabled via firmware], and it's for three dollars and two cents.
- aeruder 6y ago
  Still makes me mad. I bought a device that plays PS3 games and runs Linux and then Sony said I have to choose.

floatingatoll 6y ago

They can just revoke the signature, right?

__s 6y ago
Only if network access can access revocation
SilverRed 6y ago
They can't revoke the math that makes the signature valid. As long as the card is unable to get a network connection to work out the driver is revoked, there is no going back on this.
dheera 6y ago
Even if they do some CA-side revoking crap you could just have your system not check, or revert to a previous state in which the signature was not revoked.
- astrange 6y ago
  They can adopt online signatures, it's not hard to prevent rolling back an install like that. But you now need an internet connection at update time.
  - dheera 6y ago
    I can always restore my hard disk to an earlier image, or reinstall the driver from offline sources and lock down updates with apt-get hold
    - astrange 6y ago
      You can't do that to an iPhone (or a Mac with full boot security enabled) and they could do the same thing if they wanted.
      - dheera 6y ago

paulmd 6y ago

That's what this article is about, yeah, NVIDIA is confirming they screwed up. It also appears the VBIOS on MSI's 3060 cards didn't include it either, I'm not 100% clear but I'm guessing you need both here. I've seen other discussions where people report flashing it on EVGA cards and then it increases performance to the expected levels.

peanut_worm 6y ago

Makes me wonder if it was intentional. They make more money from miners buying up all their cards, no?