X11 Algorithm – ASIC Miners, Coins, Pool – BitcoinWiki

Bitcoin Core (Blockstream) added a pull request to merge Luke Jr's controversial GPU PoW algo change, and within just a few hours Bitcoin Core added a "consensus" label to it! What are they thinking? Wlad at least says it needs more discussion but this change will make ALL ASIC MINERS obsolete.

Bitcoin Core (Blockstream) added a pull request to merge Luke Jr's controversial GPU PoW algo change, and within just a few hours Bitcoin Core added a submitted by Gobitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Core (Blockstream) added a pull request to merge Luke Jr's controversial GPU PoW algo change, and within just a few hours Bitcoin Core added a "consensus" label to it! What are they thinking? Wlad at least says it needs more discussion but this change will make ALL ASIC MINERS obsolete.

Bitcoin Core (Blockstream) added a pull request to merge Luke Jr's controversial GPU PoW algo change, and within just a few hours Bitcoin Core added a submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving

3 months later. How the profitability of mining changed after halving
On May 11, the size of the Bitcoin mining reward fell by half. The next time it will be in 2024. What devices will be profitable by that time, and what to hope for owners of obsolete equipment.
In May 2020, a halving took place on the bitcoin network. The cryptocurrency mining reward has decreased from 12.5 to 6.25 BTC. This is a long-awaited event, which, according to the hopes of the crypto community, should lead to a strong increase in the value of the coin. For example, Anthony Pompliano, co-founder of investment company Morgan Creek Digital, predicted that the rate would rise to $100,000 by the end of 2021, primarily due to lower mining rewards.
So far, the bitcoin price hasn’t responded to the halving as much as expected. In mid-May, at the time of the reduction in the mining reward, the BTC rate was around $9,000. To date, the cryptocurrency has risen in price by 27%. This year’s high was set yesterday, August 18, at $12,400.
The hashrate of the cryptocurrency network showed a different dynamics. Its value fell immediately after the halving from 137.5 to 87 EH/s, according to bitinfocharts.com. Since mining bitcoins has become less profitable, some of the miners probably turned off their equipment. They could switch to mining other coins or completely abandon this activity due to its unprofitability.
Later, when the BTC rate began to rise, the amount of computing power in the coin’s network also began to increase. So, from late May to mid-August, the cryptocurrency hash rate increased from 87 to 130 EH/s. But over the past three days, the figure has dropped sharply by 20%, caused by floods in China. Torrential rains in Sichuan province caused power outages that interfered with the operation of mining farms.
Changes in hashrate and mining rewards have affected its difficulty. On May 11, at the time of the halving, this figure was at around 16.1 T. By the current moment, this value has increased to 16.9 T, in July rising to a maximum of 17.3 T.
The decline in the reward for mining cryptocurrency was partially offset by the increase in fees. Until May, a single BTC transfer cost the user an average of 50 cents. By the current moment, commissions have grown more than 10 times, to $5.5.
Mining profitability is now at around 0.114 THash/s. It fell sharply immediately after the halving from 0.16 to 0.08 THash/s. To date, the indicator has grown by 40%. This was due to the rise in BTC prices and higher fees.
Development Director at BitCluster Dmitry Shuvaev said that the profitability of the device for mining BTC s17–73Th/s is now about 8 thousand rubles per month (at an electricity price of 3.5 rubles per kWh). The payback period is about 15 months. Old devices, such as the Antminer S9, are now unprofitable to use, they do not bring profit. But this situation may change if the bitcoin rate rises to $15,000.
“We recommend our customers to buy the new generation S17 or S19 devices. It is these devices that will provide profitability until the next halving. Their break-even point is at $6,000 per bitcoin”, Shuvaev said.
In June, specialists from the research division of the BitMEX exchange announced that in the long term, 2–3 ASIC miner manufacturers will remain in the industry. Canaan’s Avalon devices were the first to hit the market in 2014. Three years later, in 2017, Bitmain took 75% of the market.
Subscribe to our Telegram channel
submitted by Smart_Smell to Robopay [link] [comments]

is it possible to male obsolete miners more efficient?

for example we got ASIC miner m3x, if you put it in any calculator and measure it with china's electricity price(0.04$) you'll see that you'll be losing money so the question is: is there a way to downgrade or whatever else to make the miner use less power or less TH so that there could be income?
submitted by jintakada0 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

#UASF. It's the only way.

Either we get Segwit with UASF, or we get it with UASF pushing the miners into MASF. Bring up UASF to jihan trolls and watch how triggered they get. Stopping UASF is their new fight. Fuck off with your "compromise/make both sides happy" bullshit. Community consensus is Segwit. They are just shitty miners who don't care about bitcoins best interest and we won't bow to them to get what we want. This is bitcoin motherfuckers. Support UASF.
submitted by btcetc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What will be your biggest fears and risks to setup mining farm.

What will be your biggest fears and risks to setup mining farm.
https://preview.redd.it/1mc2ilhunwf41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e573bcad9aa13b87ec1a691496268dd1303b70c3
Crypto currency mining is fascinating topic. It is 21st century mining with computer hardware and software. Looking for blocks on the block-chain to be rewarded in crypto currency. To start crypto currency mining business or hobby you have to understand what kind of risks you might face. To start Bitcoin mining you will need and ASIC miner, which is basically bunch of CPUs. This kind of equipment might cost you a lot of capital, so it is a good thing to recognize the risks you might face.
  1. In the early days in Bitcoin mining you could make some profit with your laptop CPU or GPU. These days are long gone, every year new more efficient hardware is been developed. Which makes older hardware obsolete for mining. Meaning that bad timing investment could potentially make your investment worthless.
  2. Hardware failure is very big thing to reduce mining risks. This hardware needs to be run 24/7 to gain the most optimal revenue from mining. Very often these devices/hardware do brake down, asic miners are the worse hardware comparing to GPU. Hashing board failure is common problem on them, which will need additional investment after 6 month from your purchase. If this would happen to your devices.
  3. The one of the hardest parts is not enough profits. Crypto currencies are extremely volatile, one day you could mine in profit the next day you might be at loss. If you are using latest hardware, most important to stay in the game and mine with profit. Is to have cheapest electric rate between all the other miners on network. Electric is everyone biggest OPEX cost, dont even think to start mining as a business large scale if your power costs is above 6-7c a kw/h. It might be profitable to mine with 20c per kw/h today but it might not be anymore tomorrow. Which means you will need to shutdown your mining farm.
  4. Legal risks . Crypto currency is still very new, and it has not been regulated very well. So you might face some kind of crypto currency ban in the country which might affect your mining operation.
  5. Hacking – Use crypto currency safe as possible. You know the good old saying not your keys not your coins. Don’t keep your mined coins on exchange. And use only community trusted mining pools.
  6. And the last of the top 6 is the environmental risk. Choose mining location wisely. Mining hardware most likely will use a lot of power, this is why they will produce a lot of heat. And heat will affect your mining operation. Something like mining container could be an option.
Recognize your risks before starting a mining operation.
Please comment down bellow with any more risks you might think it is worth to mention.
VIDEO - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eNuG04n2zI&feature=youtu.be
submitted by mineshop to gpumining [link] [comments]

Mining for Profitability - Horizen (formerly ZenCash) Thanks Early GPU Miners

Mining for Profitability - Horizen (formerly ZenCash) Thanks Early GPU Miners
Thank you for inviting Horizen to the GPU mining AMA!
ZEN had a great run of GPU mining that lasted well over a year, and brought lots of value to the early Zclassic miners. It is mined using Equihash protocol, and there have been ASIC miners available for the algorithm since about June of 2018. GPU mining is not really profitable for Horizen at this point in time.
We’ve got a lot of miners in the Horizen community, and many GPU miners also buy ASIC miners. Happy to talk about algorithm changes, security, and any other aspect of mining in the questions below. There are also links to the Horizen website, blog post, etc. below.
So, if I’m not here to ask you to mine, hold, and love ZEN, what can I offer? Notes on some of the lessons I’ve learned about maximizing mining profitability. An update on Horizen - there is life after moving on from GPU mining. As well as answering your questions during the next 7 days.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Mining for Profitability - Horizen (formerly ZenCash) Thanks Early GPU Miners

Author: Rolf Versluis - co-founder of Horizen

In GPU mining, just like in many of the activities involved with Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies, there is both a cycle and a progression. The Bitcoin price cycle is fairly steady, and by creating a personal handbook of actions to take during the cycle, GPU miners can maximize their profitability.
Maximizing profitability isn't the only aspect of GPU mining that is important, of course, but it is helpful to be able to invest in new hardware, and be able to have enough time to spend on building and maintaining the GPU miners. If it was a constant process that also involved losing money, then it wouldn't be as much fun.

Technology Progression

For a given mining algorithm, there is definitely a technology progression. We can look back on the technology that was used to mine Bitcoin and see how it first started off as Central Processing Unit (CPU) mining, then it moved to Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) mining, then Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), and then Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC).
Throughout this evolution we have witnessed a variety of unsavory business practices that unfortunately still happen on occasion, like ASIC Miner manufacturers taking pre-orders 6 months in advance, GPU manufacturers creating commercial cards for large farms that are difficult for retail customers to secure and ASIC Miner manufacturers mining on gear for months before making it available for sale.
When a new crypto-currency is created, in many cases a new mining algorithm is created also. This is important, because if an existing algorithm was used, the coin would be open to a 51% attack from day one, and may not even be able to build a valid blockchain.
Because there's such a focus on profitable software, developers for GPU mining applications are usually able to write a mining application fairly rapidly, then iterate it to the limit of current GPU technology. If it looks like a promising new cryptocurrency, FPGA stream developers and ASIC Hardware Developers start working on their designs at the same time.
The people who create the hashing algorithms run by the miners are usually not very familiar with the design capabilities of Hardware manufacturers. Building application-specific semiconductors is an industry that's almost 60 years old now, and FPGA’s have been around for almost 35 years. This is an industry that has very experienced engineers using advanced design and modeling tools.
Promising cryptocurrencies are usually ones that are deploying new technology, or going after a big market, and who have at least a team of talented software developers. In the best case, the project has a full-stack business team involving development, project management, systems administration, marketing, sales, and leadership. This is the type of project that attracts early investment from the market, which will drive the price of the coin up significantly in the first year.
For any cryptocurrency that's a worthwhile investment of time, money, and electricity for the hashing, there will be a ASIC miners developed for it. Instead of fighting this technology progression, GPU miners may be better off recognizing it as inevitable, and taking advantage of the cryptocurrency cycle to maximize GPU mining profitability instead.

Cryptocurrency Price Cycle

For quality crypto projects, in addition to the one-way technology progression of CPU -> GPU -> FPGA -> ASIC, there is an upward price progression. More importantly, there is a cryptocurrency price cycle that oscillates around an overall upgrade price progression. Plotted against time, a cycle with an upward progressions looks like a sine wave with an ever increasing average value, which is what we see so far with the Bitcoin price.

Cryptocurrency price cycle and progression for miners
This means mining promising new cryptocurrencies with GPU miners, holding them as the price rises, and being ready to sell a significant portion in the first year. Just about every cryptocurrency is going to have a sharp price rise at some point, whether through institutional investor interest or by being the target of a pump-and-dump operation. It’s especially likely in the first year, while the supply is low and there is not much trading volume or liquidity on exchanges.
Miners need to operate in the world of government money, as well as cryptocurrency. The people who run mining businesses at some point have to start selling their mining proceeds to pay the bills, and to buy new equipment as the existing equipment becomes obsolete. Working to maximize profitability means more than just mining new cryptocurrencies, it also means learning when to sell and how to manage money.

Managing Cash for Miners

The worst thing that can happen to a business is to run out of cash. When that happens, the business usually shuts down and goes into bankruptcy. Sometimes an investor comes in and picks up the pieces, but at the point the former owners become employees.
There are two sides to managing cash - one is earning it, the other is spending it, and the cryptocurrency price cycle can tell the GPU miner when it is the best time to do certain things. A market top and bottom is easy to recognize in hindsight, and harder to see when in the middle of it. Even if a miner is able to recognize the tops and bottoms, it is difficult to act when there is so much hype and positivity at the top of the cycle, and so much gloom and doom at the bottom.
A decent rule of thumb for the last few cycles appears to be that at the top and bottom of the cycle BTC is 10x as expensive compared to USD as the last cycle. Newer crypto projects tend to have bigger price swings than Bitcoin, and during the rising of the pricing cycle there is the possibility that an altcoin will have a rise to 100x its starting price.
Taking profits from selling altcoins during the rise is important, but so is maintaining a reserve. In order to catch a 100x move, it may be worth the risk to put some of the altcoin on an exchange and set a very high limit order. For the larger cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin it is important to set trailing sell stops on the way up, and to not buy back in for at least a month if a sell stop gets triggered. Being able to read price charts, see support and resistance areas for price, and knowing how to set sell orders are an important part of mining profitability.

Actions to Take During the Cycle

As the cycle starts to rise from the bottom, this is a good time to buy mining hardware - it will be inexpensive. Also to mine and buy altcoins, which are usually the first to see a price rise, and will have larger price increases than Bitcoin.
On the rise of the cycle, this is a good time to see which altcoins are doing well from a project fundamentals standpoint, and which ones look like they are undergoing accumulation from investors.
Halfway through the rise of the cycle is the time to start selling altcoins for the larger project cryptos like Bitcoin. Miners will miss some of the profit at the top of the cycle, but will not run out of cash by doing this. This is also the time to stop buying mining hardware. Don’t worry, you’ll be able to pick up that same hardware used for a fraction of the price at the next bottom.
As the price nears the top of the cycle, sell enough Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to meet the following projected costs:
  • Mining electricity costs for the next 12 months
  • Planned investment into new miners for the next cycle
  • Additional funds needed for things like supporting a family or buying a Lambo
  • Taxes on all the capital gains from the sale of cryptocurrencies
It may be worth selling 70-90% of crypto holdings, maintaining a reserve in case there is second upward move caused by government bankruptcies. But selling a large part of the crypto is helpful to maintaining profitability and having enough cash reserves to make it through the bottom part of the next cycle.
As the cycle has peaked and starts to decline, this is a good time to start investing in mining facilities and other infrastructure, brush up on trading skills, count your winnings, and take some vacation.
At the bottom of the cycle, it is time to start buying both used and new mining equipment. The bottom can be hard to recognize.
If you can continue to mine all the way through bottom part of the cryptocurrency pricing cycle, paying with the funds sold near the top, you will have a profitable and enjoyable cryptocurrency mining business. Any cryptocurrency you are able to hold onto will benefit from the price progression in the next higher cycle phase.

An Update on Horizen - formerly ZenCash

The team at Horizen recognizes the important part that GPU miners played in the early success of Zclassic and ZenCash, and there is always a welcoming attitude to any of ZEN miners, past and present. About 1 year after ZenCash launched, ASIC miners became available for the Equihash algorithm. Looking at a chart of mining difficulty over time shows when it was time for GPU miners to move to mining other cryptocurrencies.

Horizen Historical Block Difficulty Graph
Looking at the hashrate chart, it is straightforward to see that ASIC miners were deployed starting June 2018. It appears that there was a jump in mining hashrate in October of 2017. This may have been larger GPU farms switching over to mine Horizen, FPGA’s on the network, or early version of Equihash ASIC miners that were kept private.
The team understands the importance of the cryptocurrency price cycle as it affects the funds from the Horizen treasury and the investments that can be made. 20% of each block mined is sent to the Horizen non-profit foundation for use to improve the project. Just like miners have to manage money, the team has to decide whether to spend funds when the price is high or convert it to another form in preparation for the bottom part of the cycle.
During the rise and upper part of the last price cycle Horizen was working hard to maximize the value of the project through many different ways, including spending on research and development, project management, marketing, business development with exchanges and merchants, and working to create adoption in all the countries of the world.
During the lower half of the cycle Horizen has reduced the team to the essentials, and worked to build a base of users, relationships with investors, exchanges, and merchants, and continue to develop the higher priority software projects. Lower priority software development, going to trade shows, and paying for business partnerships like exchanges and applications have all been completely stopped.
Miners are still a very important part of the Horizen ecosystem, earning 60% of the block reward. 20% goes to node operators, with 20% to the foundation. In the summer of 2018 the consensus algorithm was modified slightly to make it much more difficult for any group of miners to perform a 51% attack on Horizen. This has so far proven effective.
The team is strong, we provide monthly updates on a YouTube live stream on the first Wednesday of each month where all questions asked during the stream are addressed, and our marketing team works to develop awareness of Horizen worldwide. New wallet software was released recently, and it is the foundation application for people to use and manage their ZEN going forward.
Horizen is a Proof of Work cryptocurrency, and there is no plan to change that by the current development team. If there is a security or centralization concern, there may be change to the algorithm, but that appears unlikely at this time, as the hidden chain mining penalty looks like it is effective in stopping 51% attacks.
During 2019 and 2020 the Horizen team plans to release many new software updates:
  • Sidechains modification to main software
  • Sidechain Software Development Kit
  • Governance and Treasury application running on a sidechain
  • Node tracking and payments running on a sidechain
  • Conversion from blockchain to a Proof of Work BlockDAG using Equihash mining algorithm
After these updates are working well, the team will work to transition Horizen over to a governance model where major decisions and the allocation of treasury funds are done through a form of democratic voting. At this point all the software developed by Horizen is expected to be open source.
When the governance is transitioned, the project should be as decentralized as possible. The goal of decentralization is to enable resilience and preventing the capture of the project by regulators, government, criminal organizations, large corporations, or a small group of individuals.
Everyone involved with Horizen can be proud of what we have accomplished together so far. Miners who were there for the early mining and growth of the project played a large part in securing the network, evangelizing to new community members, and helping to create liquidity on new exchanges. Miners are still a very important part of the project and community. Together we can look forward to achieving many new goals in the future.

Here are some links to find out more about Horizen.
Horizen Website – https://horizen.global
Horizen Blog – https://blog.horizen.global
Horizen Reddit - https://www.reddit.com/Horizen/
Horizen Discord – https://discord.gg/SuaMBTb
Horizen Github – https://github.com/ZencashOfficial
Horizen Forum – https://forum.horizen.global/
Horizen Twitter – https://twitter.com/horizenglobal
Horizen Telegram – https://t.me/horizencommunity
Horizen on Bitcointalk – https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2047435.0
Horizen YouTube Channel – https://www.youtube.com/c/Horizen/
Buy or Sell Horizen
Horizen on CoinMarketCap – https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zencash/

About the Author:

Rolf Versluis is Co-Founder and Executive Advisor of the privacy oriented cryptocurrency Horizen. He also operates multiple private cryptocurrency mining facilities with hundreds of operational systems, and has a blog and YouTube channel on crypto mining called Block Operations.
Rolf applies his engineering background as well as management and leadership experience from running a 60 person IT company in Atlanta and as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer operating out of Hawaii to help grow and improve the businesses in which he is involved.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Thank you again for the Ask Me Anything - please do. I'll be checking the post and answering questions actively from 28 Feb to 6 Mar 2019 - Rolf
submitted by Blockops to gpumining [link] [comments]

Newbie Question - GekkoScience USB Miners

In looking around the site and reading the FAQ, I didn't see whether or not the GekkoScience USB miners will or wont work. Can you guys verify that for me? If you are not sure what I'm talking about, PM me and I can send an Amazon link to what I'm looking at.
Thanks in advance for the help!
submitted by Pollo_Caliente to MiningPoolHub [link] [comments]

Debunking myths about mining and GPUs

E: Going to bed, will contribute more tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Myth: Mining is more stressful than gaming. Fact: It depends. During the old days, this was plausible, because older GPUs (Pre-polaris) are/were bottlenecked by core clock when mining the most profitable coins. Thus, miners overclocked and overvolted these cards quite frequently, especially with cheap electricity. This meant that those cards were often run hot, pushing the limits and stressing VRM and fans quite a lot. Nowadays, ethash (Ethereum) is the most profitable algorithm for AMD cards 99% of the time, and newer GPUs (Polaris) are limited by memory bandwidth and latency. Miners can underclock core to the low 1100MHz range before seeing performance drop. To save power, miners who know what they are doing also undervolt, since it is no longer necessary to sustain a high core clock. Thus, it is quite feasible to run polaris cards below 70C at a reasonable fan speed. However, dual mining (mining more than one coin at once) does increase power consumption by up to 20%, and there are also idiots who run their polaris cards OCd while mining. With the exception of a few idiots, miners treat their Polaris GPUs pretty much the same; that is, running underclocked and undervolted 24/7 with a memory strap mod and mem OC. On the other hand, former gaming cards are highly variable in use cases. Some gamers leave their cards at stock settings, some undervolt, and some OC and/or overvolt. Most of the time, these cards are thermal cycled far more often than mining cards, which is known to weaken solder. Another thing to consider is that manufacturers have learned (somewhat) from their mistakes of putting shit tier fans in GPUs, and many fans on modern GPUs are ball bearing and/or swappable. Even some budget cards, such as MSI Armor, use decent ball bearing fans. Bottom line: the risk of buying mined Polaris cards is not as high as the risk of buying older mined cards. I would not be against buying mined polaris cards, but it's not necessarily better than buying a gamer's card instead. At the end of the day, it depends more on how the owner treated it than what they used it for.
Myth: GPUs are obsolete because of FPGAs and ASICs Fact: Mostly false. Older algorithms such as scrypt and SHA256 (lite/doge/feathebitcoin etc) are no longer feasible to mine with GPUs, but there have been multiple algorithms since then that are built to deter ASICs; most of the time it is done by making it memory-hard because designing an ASIC with high memory throughput is considerably more expensive to design and manufacture. Many devs prefer their blockchain to be ASIC resistant to avoid the concentration of power problem that Bitcoin is having nowadays, where a giant, near-monopolistic ASIC manufacturer (Bitmain) is causing a lot of (subjective) controversy. Blockchains based on ethash (Ethereum and its forks), equihash (Zcash and its forks) and cryptonight (Monero and forks) are some examples, but there are scores of other shitcoins and a few other algos that are GPU dominant. It is almost impossible that there will be another ASIC takeover, which is what was responsible for the stop in GPU demand in the bitcoin and litecoin days. Bottom line: ASICs no longer threaten GPU miners, or the demand for GPUs
Myth: Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake will kill mining soon Fact: Doomsayers have been preaching about proof of stake since late 2015. It has always been "coming soon." The fact is, the Ethereum roadmap goes from proof of work (mining) -> Casper (mining + PoS) -> Metropolis (PoS). Currently, the release date of Casper is not even announced yet, nor is it being tested in a (public) testnet. Proof of Stake might one day take over, but mining is here to stay for a while yet. Another thing to consider is that there are tons of other GPU mineable blockchains, and although Ethereum is biggest, it is certainly feasible that mining stays profitable even after Ethereum goes PoS (if it ever does). However, it is possible that profits will be low enough to discourage new miners. Bottom line: It's very unlikely. E: I screwed up the roadmap; here is a better source than me with some interesting information: https://www.ethnews.com/ethereums-vitalik-buterin-gives-keynote-on-metropolis
Myth: The current Ethereum demand spike is a bubble Opinion: Honestly, I don't know. I would not be surprised if stricter regulations on ICOs come sooner or later, which would fuck with Ether prices. There is also the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it is also possible that blockchain technology continues to gain traction; that is, the price could just as easily go up as go down. Although it's fun to read about other people's opinions, only time-travelling wizards can tell you when it will become economical again to upgrade your poor HD5770. Bottom line: No one knows.
Myth: Miners will "steal" all the RX Vegas Fact: Only a reckless miner would buy Vegas on release, since mining performance is not known. In fact, it is possible that it can't mine at all (or at some stupidly low speed) until devs add support to existing miners. It would be even more reckless than gamers who buy without seeing benchmarks, since at least gamers can expect the games to actually run. It's also not necessarily the case that Vega will be good once miners do add support. Maybe there will be enough reckless miners to affect supply, maybe not. Of course, it is possible that miners will deplete the supply after it is demonstrated that Vega is good for mining. Bottom line: Most miners won't preorder, but it's possible that a significant number will. E: Important to remember that even if mining demand isn't high, doesn't mean that supply will be plentiful.
Myth: Nvidia cards SUCK at mining Fact: Mostly false. They USED to suck in the old pre-Maxwell days, but now they are actually more efficient at mining Ethereum and Zcash compared to AMD cards, even after both cards are undervolted. The flipside is that they (used to) cost more for the equivalent hashrate. For reference, my old 5xRX470 rig drew just under 800W when mining ETH only and hashed at 150MH/s. My current 6xGTX1060 rig draws just over half of that (<450W) and hashes at about 135MH/s. Certainly not as good in raw performance, but they are viable nonetheless, especially given the AMD GPU shortage. In fact, Nvidia cards (1060 and especially 1070) are becoming scarce as well. Bottom line: Nvidia is still the underdog when it comes to mining, but far from irrelevant nowadays.
Myth: 4GB cards will be obsolete for mining soon Fact: FALSE. The Ethereum DAG is not even 3GB yet, and won't be for a few months. The recent reports of 4GB Polaris cards slowing down soon due to DAG size is caused by limited TLB capacity, not VRAM restrictions. Polaris cards will still be able to mine ETH forks such as Expanse and UBIQ without diminished speed, and even if they are used to mine ETH, it is not that much of a performance hit at first. It would certainly not make polaris useless or undesirable for mining anytime soon. Tahiti GPUs already suffer from this issue and Hawaii is the most resistant to this issue. Have not benched Nvidia at a later epoch.
Myth: Creating miner-bashing posts on Reddit will help alleviate the GPU supply problem Fact: False, you are simply giving cryptocurrencies and mining more exposure to the general public, increasing demand.
Myth: Mining-specific GPUs will solve the shortage problems Opinion: There's not enough info to tell yet, but I am a skeptic for the following reasons. First, no display limits the resale value of the card for obvious reasons. IMO, the whole point of crypto mining from a profitability standpoint is to have a hedge against coin volatility (hardware is still worth something if the coin crashes). Otherwise it is much less effort to just buy and hold the coin. If the hardware is useless without demand from other (significant) sources, then it doesn't make much sense to buy it unless the price is extremely low. I'm sure that cost-downing the PCB and warranty will make for a cheap card, but it has to be extremely cheap and plentiful in supply, or else miners will buy whatever they can get. I could envision "failed" chips (not meeting spec of consumer editions) being stuck in miner cards, but I doubt there are enough to meet demand without ramping up production as a whole, which carries its own risks. I guess that it would help a little, but probably not solve the problems. Alternatively, since modern GPUs are bottlenecked by RAM when mining, it might be enticing to miners to have the fastest (GDDR5) RAM on the market (probably the 9gbps chips from the 1060 6G 9gbps edition, although I don't have one to test). However, my previous points still apply; buying such a card without display outputs carries a big risk. Bottom line: It's not a great idea, unless they are super cheap or use really good RAM.
Hope this helped; if you have any further questions I will try to answer them. I'm both a gamer and miner who uses both AMD and Nvidia roughly equally and don't favor one group over another. I've mined and gamed on all high end AMD GPUs since Tahiti (except Tonga) and all Pascal cards except 1050ti.
submitted by key_smash to Amd [link] [comments]

How the Miner Efficiency upgrade will tank the price AGAIN.

This is a really difficult concept. It took me 6 months since Nov 2018 (a time I lost a hearty chunk o cash) to really grasp how miner efficiency upgrades can tank the bitcoin price. I even was an s9 miner in 2017. Now I am trying to make others aware of what I learned.

The total amount of bitcoin blocks mined is limited to 2016 per fortnight (1800btc/day). The competition to mine blocks is intense and, when the hash rate is growing, it keeps getting more intense. The bitcoin miners are on a treadmill that is continually going faster. The reason no one can mine on a CPU anymore is because the introduction of ASIC miners made it too difficult for a CPU to mine btc. The ASIC eradicated the CPU competition.

With the advent of more efficient ASIC miners they are eradicating previous generations of ASIC miners just like they eradicated CPU miners. When S9's originally came out they costed 2k/unit. After Nov 2018 an S9 costed as low as $200/unit. With the release of the new S17's it will make S9 mining completely obsolete just like CPU's.

If I could make a magical ASIC that could seize 100% market share of the hash power of the network for $100 and get free electricity. I could create bitcoins for near zero cost, and I could dump 1800 bitcoins per day on the markets for PURE profit until the price of bitcoin goes to near zero.

These new efficient machines will make it so their owners can make bitcoin for VERY low prices even at higher hash rates than now. When efficiencies are not able to be increased a higher hash rate means a high bitcoin price, but when efficiencies increase a higher hash rate does NOT mean a higher bitcoin price, and depending on the degree of efficiency upgrade it can and will incentivize new miners to tank the price for greater MARKET SHARE of the 1800 bitcoin.

If you are using a horse to pull a plow it may cost 3k for that horse and all you need to feed it is hay (or grass or whatever) it may cost 50$/bushel of corn. But if your neighbor gets a 200hp tractor to till his field he would get 200x more area and it may only cost him $5/bushel of corn. He will very quickly cost you out of the market by selling his corn for $10/bushel.

Accordingly, the people in the city that were buying corn futures based on your farm at $50/bushel will also be screwed when your neighbor starts dumping his $10/bushels on the market. Bitcoins are basically futures contracts on the bitcoin mining network. People are currently buying $7800 dollar bitcoin futures contracts, not knowing that your neighbor is gassing up his tractor RIGHT NOW.
Please educate yourself on this or risk your moneys:
How the price floor works
I hope you find it interesting :)
submitted by canaryinthebtcmine to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

This crusade against ASICs and Bitmain is getting out of hand

I've lost a little faith in /CryptoCurrency after seeing this post on the frontpage along with many of the comments. This post is clearly shilling for Vertcoin and the "You're either with us, or you support them!" mentality doesn't invite meaningful discussion. Giving ultimatums is only going to do harm to the community and turn this into another unproductive argument just like it did with the block size debate. This is not what we need!
I wanted to address a few of the concerns in the aforementioned post.
There's one thing many people don't seem to understand - it is in the miners best interest to keep things decentralized. This is why Bitmain not only uses its miners but also sells them to the general public. Creating an overly centralized network and thus reducing its security would result in a huge decline in its value. Why would Bitmain want to do this considering they have vast amounts of crypto?
We've reached a point were everyone takes the security of the network for granted and doesn't realize that the reason for this security is largely due to ASICs. Changing the PoW algorithm would dramatically reduce the hashing power and security of the network in the short term and leave it vulnerable to attack.
There is also nothing stopping from Bitmain or anyone else from creating an ASIC for the new algorithm. Hard forking every few months to change it would be the only way around this.
There's no such thing as ASIC resistance. There's nothing stopping someone from amassing 1000s of graphics cards and creating mining farms with those. Would everyone be as upset if Nvidia started their own mining farm?
Suggesting moving to PoS for decentralization sake makes no sense. You are simply transferring power from those who invested thousands in R&D and took a massive risk to start developing ASICs to Joe Schmo who forgot about the Bitcoin he bought in 2010. I'd rather trust the rich people who had to work hard than those who got lucky.
I posted this on /CryptoCurrency but I don't meet their karma requirement :( Feel free to repost!
submitted by AroundChicago to btc [link] [comments]

A 14-year-old's experience with Bitcoin

First-time poster here, don’t bully me, apologies for the potentially atrocious formatting :) TL;DR at the end
So in the wake of Bitcoin’s explosive rise in value and media attention, I’ve been encouraged by others to share my experience over the past few years as a miner. Here's my story (it's kinda long, you've been warned)

Humble Beginnings

It all started almost three years ago in the beginning of 2015 when Bitcoin flew under my radar. Looking into it, I admittedly wasn’t drawn in because of the decentralisation or the anonymous payments, I was hooked on the idea that anyone could get their hands on some just by running a program and leaving it to do its own thing. I know, how shallow of me. But the idea of making even a bit of money without ‘any work’ was convincing enough for 11-year-old me to do more digging into the matter.
To my disappointment, I soon found out that the era of mining Bitcoins with a PC’s CPU or GPU was long obsolete and instead it was all ASICs at that point.
So that summer, for my twelfth birthday, I got a little ASIC machine for €60, an Antminer U3. This little thing took up less space than a graphics card but could mine at 60 GH/s. Because, at the time, I didn’t have a controller device that could be kept up and running all day long so it could run the program that mined Bitcoin using the U3, I went ahead and got a Raspberry Pi. After setting up the Pi and installing all the necessary stuff (took an awfully long time), I connected it to AntPool and plugged the U3 in. Two days past and the mining pool sent the first Bitcoin I ever received to my wallet (I was using Blockchain.info). It was just 30 cents worth of BTC but I felt a bit of a rush because I was earning a bit of money through this completely new thing and the idea of that was thrilling.
Let’s back up for a second. I just used the term ‘earning’ as if I was profiting, and naive me 2 years ago was no different. In reality, I was at first oblivious to the fact that I was most likely LOSING money overall because of how much energy that little sucker was taking in. But, I was comforted thinking that using that machine was just a practical way of learning about this modern currency and that the loss of several cents’ worth of energy was acceptable in the name of education and learning.
Fast forward ten months to the wonderful summer of 2016. I had recently turned 13 and the Antminer U3 had been running on and off throughout. Various pauses and breaks in mining would be observed, as I had to manually get everything up and running after frequent breaks in the Internet connection. You’d expect my newly-turned-teenage brain to lose interest in Bitcoin as it does with many other gimmicks, but – even surprising myself – I miraculously didn’t. Good thing I maintained interest thinking about it now, not so good at the time for my parents. Why do I say this? I felt like it was time to get a little upgrade in my hardware.

Getting an upgrade

Days passed with me comparing every ASIC miner I could at that price point. It was then I set my eyes upon the Antminer S7 (same folks who did my U3, nice). I had put it up against a plethora of other miners and I figured the S7 was my best bet; the thing costs only about 10 times that of my U3 but could run at 4.73 TH/s, almost 80 times as powerful. The only problem being its power consumption was at 1300 watts, which would put a massive dent in the electricity bill and eliminate any profit I would make. Fortunately, I had a secret weapon up my sleeve – or rather my mum did. She had rented out an office outside our apartment where she would keep files and paperwork. The office’s electricity bill was a flat rate as far as I’m aware and it ended up being my saving grace because it virtually got rid of the “oh no I’m actually going to be losing money because of how much electricity I’m eating up” factor, making this whole hardware upgrade viable.
After convincing my parents, they finally agreed to shell out the requested amount, with the initial investment being paid back with time. I went to a local Bitcoin vendor and purchased 1 BTC for about $665 in cash (sigh yes, I know. $665 dollars). Shortly after, I used about 0.9 BTC to purchase the Antminer S7 and a 1600W power supply for a grand total of $600. The products would be made and shipped from China so I was definitely in for a wait.
A month passes and the package arrives at last. I connected all the wires from the power supply into the S7 and – with great anticipation – I plugged it into the wall to start its first ever run. And what do you know? An extremely loud and high-pitched whirring sound blasted out from the fans on both the power supply as well as the S7. After killing the thing, I questioned my choices. I couldn’t dare put that thing anywhere near my mum’s office in the event it drive everyone in the building absolutely nuts. I was at a loss. However, I soon recovered from my temporarily debilitated state and got working on a solution.
The first idea that came to my mind: change the fans. The stocks fans were by Evercool and spun at around 3000 RPM. The power supply used a small, robust fan that looked like a cube that must’ve spun at extremely high speeds judging by how high the sound it produced was. I got my parents to give me some more funding so I could acquire the replacement fans and I did. Bust. After installation and testing, none of the fans would work. I managed to configure the S7 to connect to my Antpool account and the machine would manage mining for several minutes running at peak performance but ultimately be automatically cut off because of how hot the machine was getting (I’m talking about 80 degrees Celsius kinda hot in that thing). The fans got refunded and I was back to the drawing board.
After combing through some forum posts and videos, I came across this video and a forum post in which people have their mining rigs placed inside a ventilated, muffled cabinet. Undertaking a project like this would be time-consuming and risky but I had no better ideas so I decided to go through with the idea anyway.
Firstly, I sought out a cabinet with suitable dimensions. I managed to get just what I needed at a second-hand IKEA shop. Great. Secondly, I went ahead and acquired some sound-absorbing acoustic foam from a local provider. Fantastic. Finally I had to get a ventilation system going within the cabinet, otherwise, all the hot air would roast the machine alive in there in a bloody mess. With the help of my dad, we found a pair cabinet fans on the Internet that were close to silent but could circulate the air well enough.
Eventually, all the materials came and, with the help of my parents, put everything together. The process took quite long time and we had a couple hiccups along the way, but we got it done and it came out pretty nice.
The moment of truth came and, to my relief, it ran so much quieter than without the cabinet. It was nowhere near silent but it reduced the noise a great deal. Soon after, I got the thing into the office and set everything up from there. Unfortunately, I was forced to underclock it because you could still hear the machine’s whining from outside the thin office door. Gunning the hashrate down about 25% to 3.7TH/s, I could lower the fan speed without risking the machine burning up. Sure, I wasn’t getting the full potential of the machine but I didn’t complain because electricity was not an issue there and it was still a whole lot better than my U3. With it up and running, I could leave it there, periodically checking to see if it was mining on Antpool.

The aftermath

In the months that followed, I was getting a solid $2.5 worth of BTC on daily basis. Half a year later, May of 2017, I had accumulated a satisfactory $600. I thought, “At this rate, I’d be able to pay my parents’ investment back in a few months” (the total investment came close to $900). Bitcoin had risen to over $1500 so I was already over the moon at that point because of how well everything was going. Little did I know…
I hit 0.5 BTC midway through September this year. The price of BTC had dropped after a sudden rise to $5000, but I couldn’t have asked for more. Although I possessed only half the amount of BTC I paid for the machine, its value was over twice that of the initial investment. I thought BTC would level off at around $4000 but nope.
In the month of October, the price skyrocketed. Since September, I had only mined 0.017 BTC but the value was already over $3000. It was just a matter of selling it, but I decided to hodl. Good thing I did.
As of November 5, I have approximately 0.52 BTC mined in total from my S7, valued at $4000. If I were to sell it right now, I’d have a profit of over $3100. And as for my miner, it’s churning out 0.0006 BTC daily, sounds like nothing but it’s still the equivalent of $5 today and I couldn’t be happier, at least with the miner and Bitcoin.
You remember that $665 for 1 BTC that I mentioned earlier? In hindsight, it would’ve been such a better idea to just keep that one Bitcoin and not do anything with it until today (in the interest of making much more money), as I’d theoretically have upwards of $7000. The idea of that still haunts me sometimes if I dwell on it too long but knowing that I’m in possession of an already hefty amount, the pain of it had numbed slightly. It’s not all doom and gloom for me from the exponential increase in Bitcoin’s value, however. Those first $0.3 payments from my humble little U3 all those years ago now are now the equivalent of over $6 today!
Bitcoin and everything it encompasses has been and still is a journey of discovery and an adventure. Looking back, starting with a modest €60 Antminer U3 to having a sum of Bitcoin equivalent to two extremely high-end gaming rigs (first thing I could think of as a comparison, sorry) has been something I can’t really describe. Through the course of the past few years, I’ve learned more about technology, I’ve unexpectedly gotten insight into economics and business and – of course – I’ve made a lot of money (if I decide to stop hodling that is).
Also, props to my parents for keeping an open mind throughout, I know some parents would be horrified at their kids being involved in something that has been used in some less-than-savoury ways and it's great knowing mine have been supportive all the way.
TL;DR got into Bitcoin mining 3 years ago at age 11 with an Antminer U3 that ran at 60 GH/s, got an Antminer S7 (4.73TH/s) and built a sound-muffling, ventilated cabinet for it. Am sat here today with $3000 profit if I decide to sell right now.
submitted by xx_riptide_xx to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why Bitcoin is the worst thing for renewables, and good news only for coal: it's inflexible demand

A comment on my blog post about Proof-of-Work from Janne M. Korhonen, who started following this Bitcoin rubbish because of his interest in energy policy.
Thanks, this is very good explanation. Just one addition: energy researchers around the world snigger at claims made by Bitcoin enthusiasts about how Bitcoin supposedly promotes renewable energy use.
On the contrary, Bitcoin mining is one of the least renewable-compatible industrial processes there are. (As long as we’re not talking about hydro or geothermal, both of which have very specific siting demands and are not really expandable in most developed countries.)
The reason for this is simple. New, promising renewable energy sources, namely wind and solar PV, do not produce steady power like coal plants or hydro stations do. Instead, for reasons that should be obvious, they produce only during favorable weather conditions. In no case do these conditions prevail for more than approximately 45% of the time. (That’s top-end “capacity factor” from very large offshore wind power plants; for typical solar PV, the capacity factor would be from 8 to 15 percent.)
So for the rest of the time, the electricity needs to be provided by some other means. This is THE major problem and bottleneck with renewable energy expansion plans these days: the generators themselves are already relatively cheap, but they produce intermittent power.
Yes, there are some ways these problems can be mitigated (e.g. vast interconnector networks connecting multiple generator sites), but weather conditions tend to correlate over long distances. Night, in particular, tends to fall equally no matter how many solar panels you have installed. Batteries are another theoretical solution, but the RE + battery combo required for steady 24/7 power supply will not win any awards in the least cost energy category any time soon (that is, as long as coal burning is allowed). So one of the main headaches for those of us who are interested in cleaning up the world’s energy system is how to increase the flexibility of demand.
Now in Bitcoin, we have expensive, single-purpose investments in ASIC miners. These investments need to be recouped as fast as possible, because otherwise the miners will become obsolete before they gain even their costs. Who does seriously believe any miner in his right mind would throttle the mining operations in response to power supply?
Yup, none.
Even the old bugbears of inflexible, energy-intensive 24/7 processes like smelting are getting into flexibility act and redesigning their technology to better respond to variable supply. Yet here we have people who blithely claim that adding extremely inflexible demand is great for renewable energy.
Spoiler alert: it’s great for coal.
Update: He's written it up as a post now:
https://jmkorhonen.net/2018/05/25/bitcoin-is-not-a-good-fit-for-renewable-energy-heres-why/
submitted by dgerard to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

What is ProgPoW? Why Ethereum needs it moving forward.

Update: ASIC Manufacture say they can make a ProgPoW ASIC

Disclosure, I'm a avid GPU miner with some 90 Nvidia GPUs running out of my garage. I've been in and out of the mining scene since 2011,2014, and recently 2017. I Hold BTC, ETH, RVN. I directly benefit from them moving to ProgPOW, but not without a good reason. Everytime I've gotten into home GPU mining ASICs comes out BTC, LTC, I've had to give up every time. I refuse to see it happen to another excellent coin.

I've been a proponent of Ethereum following there ASIC resistance stance outlined in the original white-paper. Now that ProgPOW has been given the "Green-light" by Hudson Jameson to move forward with ProgPOW. I really think its time to discuss the Algorithm. What it is, who created it, why Ethereum needs it and dismiss crazy theories such as Nvidia funding development.

Before we start highly suggest everyone watch BitsBeTrippin's video where she breaks down ProgPOW at devcon4.

A Quick breakdown of What is ProgPOW?
ProgPoW is a proof-of-work algorithm designed to close the efficency gap available to specialized ASICs. It utilizes almost all parts of commodity hardware (GPUs), and comes pre-tuned for the most common hardware utilized in the Ethereum network.

From reading the white paper listed on Github the main idea behind ProgPOW is NOT to achieve total ASIC-resistance. The idea is to kill the 50-1000x Efficiency gains from specialized ASIC hardware. Such as what we saw recently with Equihash 200/9 coins where 50x was achieved over GPUs. ProgPOW algorithm uses most of the GPU minus a few parts. It takes the original Eth-Hash algorithm and add more features.
The main elements of the algorithm are:
ProgPOW will Inherit Eth-Hash current DAG size meaning 2GB and 3GB will not be able to mine still. Additionally no advantage is given to Either Nvidia or AMD GPUs
ProgPoW has been designed to be a vendor-neutral proof-of-work, or more specifically, proof-of-GPU. ProgPoW has intentionally avoided using features that only one core architecture has, such as LOP3 on NVIDIA, or indexed register files on AMD.

According to Kristy, she has had direct contact with AMD and Nvidia on testing ProgPOW.
As part of its review process, ProgPoW was submitted to (and reviewed by) both AMD and NVIDIA engineers. The group known as IfDefElse — of which I am a part of — has been actively working with both companies to ensure this effectively closes the efficiency gap that we speak publicly of in our papers and articles
This does not mean one side is favored over the other. She's giving and getting input from the major GPU manufactures in order to support Crypto-mining. Additionally she says "AMD is actively working with us to optimize ProgPoW for their architectures.". Using ProgPOW optimized for GPUs rids us of bowing to Bitmain, innosilicon, halong and there scandalous ways for hardware.

ProgPOW IS NOT the "God-sent savior of all GPUS" Even Kristy understand that complete ASIC-resistance is a fallacy. This will never be achieved. However By working with GPU manufactures and Crypto Dev's we can make a coin where GPUs run along-side with ASICs, but the efficiency gains are diluted. Meaning the time and money invested into an ProgPOW ASIC machine does not make economical sense. Rather just buy the actual GPU.

Quote sources from Kristy's Medium article.

Why does Ethereum need ProgPOW?

I suggest reading Siacoin's good medium article on the subject of ASICs.
It's too much to cover here but in short why we need ProgPOW against current ASICs and future ASICs
At his point in time we actually don't need ProgPOW. However we do need it as time goes on. Early Bitcoin ASICs didn't dominate BTC however as time went on, they became better more efficient than GPUs, and started dominating BTC's network. The same fate happens to any "ASIC-Resistant coin" that decides it's not a big deal (looking at you ZEN). Without a set date on POS Ethereum would have suffered the same fate. As Siacoin Dev states;
We also had loose designs for ethash (Ethereum’s algorithm). Admittedly, ethash was not as easily amenable to ASICs as equihash, but as we’ve seen from products on the market today, you can still do well enough to obsolete GPUs.
What makes ASICs bad? Isn't it better to get Hash/watt ratio? This saves tons of electric. One of PoW biggest faults. I think there is nothing bad about the ASICs hardware. Equihash ASICs achieved 20 1080ti level hashrate at 1/20 of the power. That's impressive. The problem with ASIC hardware is who, where it comes from, and there shady business practices.

  1. "It’s estimated that Monero’s secret ASICs made up more than 50% of the hashrate for almost a full year before discovery, and during that time, nobody noticed." How much of ETH hashrate could be ASICs? We won't know till the fork.
  2. I've heard a lot that ASICs aren't all that big of a deal. Focus on POS. Take in account Siacoins own network hashrate which allowed bitmain/innosilicon ASICs on the network till they forked in favor of their own ASICs after just a year (Siacoins drops 96% network hashrate).
  3. "In the case of Halong’s Decred miner, we saw them “sell out” of an unknown batch size of $10,000 miners. After that, it was observed that more than 50% of the mining rewards were collecting into a single address that was known to be associated with Halong, meaning that they did keep the majority of the hashrate and profits to themselves." GPU manufactures would not and cannot be do the same.
ASICs destroy networks, centralize the pools, and hardware. Leading to them to be controlled by large entity in this case its Chinese companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fool. Of course this doesn't happen overnight, hence my original statement that we don't need ProgPoW now. In a years time that may totally change and it will be far to late.

GPUs allow anyone to support the network. Think of the crypto run-up. Fry's Electronics, Microceneter, online E-tailers were SOLD OUT OF GPUs. Think of that! People were buying GPUs to support the network for token rewards(worth money) How many new miners, people, got interested in crypto because of this? How about friends who saw the rigs and word of mouth spread that you could go out buy a graphics card, built a rig, and earn money? obviously we know the effects because it wasn't sustainable in the remotest. However it's an attest that GPU mineable coins makes it accessible to everyone.

For Ethereum to successfully go POS it cannot hand it network over to ASIC mining companies in the meantime. POS is on an unknown release date/timeframe. I understand Vitalk does not like PoW however that's what currently securing the network. Because of this Ethereum must maintain as much decentralization as possible with GPU mining. This is what ProgPOW does. It gives AMD and Nvidia GPUs the advantage they need over ASICs created by Bitmain or others. It allows me to continue to secure the Ethereum network with my 90 GPUs until full POS switch.

Conclusion
Did it have to be ProgPOW? No, as UBIQ has shown they created there own unique ASIC-resistant algorithm. ProgPOW was given to us by the Ifdefelse team completed. This required no work from the ETH devs at all. It's open source and has been reviewed by the Etheruem Dev team. If they haven't found any issues with it yet, I don't see why we cannot implement it.

An argument can be made that if we do switch we risk security, because we'll lose network hashrate and decrease the cost to attack the network. I have two things to say to that. One since ProgPOW is new, Nicehash has not added it to it's network to rent yet. I wouldn't know how long nicehash would take to it add it, but it gives us a short while to get people on new ETH POW network. Additionally to attack the network, they would need massive coordination from GPU mining farms. Such a thing has never been recorded.

The 51% attacks that have happened recently (BCD/BTG/ZEN) and as of 1/8/18, ETC. These were all ASIC mineable coins. In the case of equihash coins, an ASIC that achieved 50x more efficiency had just came to market. It's not proven, but it leads me to believe a bad actor with early access to ASICs was able to attack those coins. All except ZEN have switched to Zhash algorithm. Even ZCASH/Zelcash has funded ProgPOW development. While I disagree they should do this, because that's entirely the problem too many coins using too many of the same algorithm, in the end it's up to the devs.

TL:DR; ASIC-Resistance is futile and a fallacy. PoS or other solutions are needed but to get there we need to keep PoW as Decentralized as possible this is what ProgPOW does.


submitted by Xazax310 to EtherMining [link] [comments]

Here is why Obelisk's actions should concern all of us, and why forks shouldn't be decided by the outrage mob.

Disclaimer: I bought multiple batch one Obelisk units and purchased 1 A3 unit. I have only ever wanted to contribute to the security of a decentralized p2p storage system. To me, profit comes second to that.
“We can unfortunately not indefinitely extend the sphere of common action and still leave the individual free in his own sphere. Once the communal sector, in which the state controls all the means, exceeds a certain proportion of the whole, the effects of its actions dominate the whole system. Although the state controls directly the use of only a large part of the available resources, the effects of its decisions on the remaining part of the economic system become so great that indirectly it controls almost everything.” - Frederich Hayek.
This will be a longer post. Please take the time to understand these viewpoints. I am going to get right down to the point and first address this "anti-Bitmain" rhetoric that is driving the calls for forking away A3 miners.
"Bitmain made this move secretly. Bitmain knew full well more than 60 days ago (the minimum amount of time required to manufacture chips, let alone design them) that they would be producing Sia ASICs. They could have disclosed this so that investors into other projects could make informed decisions before getting burned." - Taek42.
David: Did Obelisk know that Bitmain would be releasing a Blake2b miner prior to batch 1's ship date when you opened batch 2 for pre-order? Is that why batch 2 opened up so early out of nowhere? Bitmain runs a business and made a competitive move. Did Obelisk make a similar move by selling hardware they knew wouldn't be as profitable as implied when opening up the presale?
I will have a hard time believing you didn't know, in which case your logic would make Obelisk just as scummy as evil Bitmain.
"When Bitmain announced their miners, it was very clear that the majority of the core community was unhappy. 62% of Sia's 'contributors' group (123 responses) - the group that we depend on when we need to test new hardware, get a message out quickly, when we need extra people on the support forums, and all-round the group that has volunteered to be on-call if something needs to happen on the platform - have voted that they are explicitly 'unhappy'. As a leader, that has been very difficult for me...
I don't want to make a decision. I want to see the community converge upon an action to take. I want Sia to be united in the decision, and right now it's clear that there are strong supporters on both sides of the fence. That division kills me, especially because it exists as the result of a feature we baked into the Obelisk SC1." - Taek42
David - this post is going to appear largely aimed at you. I didn't intend for it this way, but I think it comes down to the fact that the only reason we are all arguing is because YOU (and whoever else in Sia) decided to implement this hardware "feature". You, as a leader, are the reason an option to fork even exists, and now your words are being used in support of this fork. While this post appears addressed to you in particular, it is also addressed to the hundreds of others that I have seen backing up your position on these topics.
There is a reason mining works on the Bitcoin network. It works because it doesn't care about the "happiness" of the users (or leaders!). The protocol remains free and open for any person with the hardware willing to compete to come in and try and topple the Queen. The Queen (evil Bitmain, in this scenario) is required to continue investing in the network or else become irrelevant. The day a miner stops continually reinvesting into the network is the day they begin losing their share of the hashrate. That is the beauty of a free and open PoW protocol. As soon as you start changing the rules of who can compete in this protocol, you inherently start playing favorites, and act similarly to the State Hayek derides. When I invested in the Obelisk hardware, I made a large risk. I understood the risk of giving a previously unknown company the equivalent of $2500 for hardware that might not exist in a year. When I invested, I invested in a miner that would secure a network where the lead developer made a great (and controversial at the time!) argument for why ASIC mining is a good thing for Sia. David, like Satoshi in 2009, understood that ASIC mining is the natural evolution of a competitive mining market.
When I invested in Obelisk, however, I was not told that my hardware was given prioritization in this competitive market. I was not told that the Sia developers had taken it upon themselves to collude with the supposedly independent Obelisk company to introduce a monopolistic kill switch to invalidate all Obelisk competitors on the Sia network. Had I known this, I would have taken a large step back and asked myself why I believe in the Sia project long term. I don't mine to satisfy the whims of developers and users. I mine to compete as hard as I can against other miners to find the next block. That is my only function. PoW mining works precisely because that is my only function. The minute those rules change, the integrity of the protocol comes into question.
"I truly believe that the A3 is a bad thing for the Sia network. And I also truly believe that we have the power to stand up to Bitmain and to reject the miner they developed in secret, reject their business strategy of flooding the market with hardware such that nobody is able to ROI (except Bitmain, of course), and reject the total lack of transparency about how much hardware they produce and who they sell it to." - Taek42
Who is "we"? Is "we" this supposedly independent company Obelisk? Is "we" the #contributors Discord channel? Who are you actually rejecting? Bitmain only let you buy one A3 per account on their website. Did people get around this? I'm sure they did. However, if the entire goal of trying to beat Bitmain to the market was decentralization of mining equipment, isn't this the best case scenario given that Obelisk was out-competed? The root of this problem comes from the inability of individuals to separate their anti-Bitmain sentiments from the fact that real individuals who care about growing the Sia network bought A3's. Individuals who care about decentralization. Individuals who care about decentralized p2p storage systems. Contrary to what you think, I don't need to be protected from Bitmain's business practices by the Sia Core developers. I am free to make my decision as a consumer as to who I want to buy Blake2b hashing hardware from. If Bitmain delivers a product cheaper and more efficent than Obelisk, then I will buy antminers. If Obelisk delivers a product cheaper and more efficient than Bitmain, then I will buy Obelisks. My morality as a miner means nothing, and it never should! Mining works because I can be as scummy of a person as I want to be. If I don't continue to heavily invest in the security of the network, then I quickly become irrelevant. Anyone who contributes to the security of this network is not my enemy. Don't make them your enemy.
It is really that simple. I am now an investor in Obelisk the company. You guys made a very great move giving me $800 coupons for the second order I make. When I bought Obelisk I loved the idea of a competitor in the chip-manufacturing industry. You are positioned well to compete. Do it. Do you want the Bitmain miners to be obsolete on the Sia network? Then make better chips than them. That's all there is to it. In 2 years if Obelisk is producing better quality Blake2b hashing chips than Bitmain, then you will have removed Bitmain from the ecosystem. That is the ONLY way you should invalidate Bitmain hardware - by competitively making them obsolete. The minute you change the rules of the protocol to favor one chip manufacturer over another is the day I am done with the Sia Core team. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how PoW secures the network. In the initial announcement you made on Discord the night Bitmain announced the miners, you said something along the lines of "users control the network, not the miners". I am going to reiterate what I said elsewhere which is this that this is a fatal misunderstanding of PoW. It has bothered me so much since that I have actually reconsidered buying more Obelisk units. Users do nothing to prevent governments from destroying the Sia protocol. Users do nothing to prevent storage contracts from being invalidated from outside attacks. Users do NOTHING to secure the network. That is an uncomfortable fact many who have been swallowing the Blockstream propaganda for the past few years have to come to grips with. Miners live to compete, and miners are the ONLY ones who secure the network. If you wanted an oligarchic system where users friendly with the Core developers are given preferential treatment in the competitive market of mining then you should have chosen PoS for the protocol. The minute the protocol adopts a system where the integrity of that competitive market is compromised, then the security of the protocol is permanently destroyed.
David - you are part of the Obelisk team. Stop this nonsense. You are silently supporting the Luxor team (all heavy Obelisk investors) forking the protocol to brick the A3's. This won't be a "community" decision. It will be a decision made by an entrenched bureaucracy for the benefit of itself. The Luxor mining pool donates its profits to the Core development team. The Core development team has its hands in Obelisk, and were specifically involved in the addition of the kill-switch inherent to the SC1's. To pretend like this will be a "community" decision is an insult to anyone paying attention, and it will result in a forked coin. Given the choice between a mining protocol where anyone is free to compete and a mining protocol where early investors are favored, I will choose the former.
We have argued in depth previously about mining (and monopolies in general). We disagreed with each other pretty strongly. I understand that Bitmain seems like an evil monopoly right now, but the only way to remove them from that pedestal is to keep your head down and make Obelisk a better chip manufacturer. You will not beat them by anti-competitive practices that favor yourself and early investors. Please be careful with what you are showing outward support for. You will fracture this community pretty heavily, and I worry that you will send away a lot of hashrate if you do so. From the sounds of it, you don't really care, and that is worrisome. The more hashrate you have on the network the more secure it is. Why are we not happy that Sia is in a position to be more secure than ever?
submitted by God_Emperor_of_Dune to siacoin [link] [comments]

What is ProgPoW? Why Ethereum needs it moving forward.

Update: ASIC Manufacture say they can make a ProgPoW ASIC

Disclosure, I'm a avid GPU miner with some 90 Nvidia GPUs running out of my garage. I've been in and out of the mining scene since 2011,2014, and recently 2017. I Hold BTC, ETH, RVN. I directly benefit from them moving to ProgPOW, but not without a good reason. Every-time I've gotten into home GPU mining ASICs comes out BTC, LTC, I've had to give up every time. I refuse to see it happen to another excellent coin.

I've been a proponent of Ethereum following there ASIC resistance stance outlined in the original white-paper. Now that ProgPOW has been given the "Green-light" by Hudson Jameson to move forward with ProgPOW. I really think its time to discuss the Algorithm. What it is, who created it, why Ethereum needs it and dismiss crazy theories such as Nvidia funding development.

Before we start highly suggest everyone watch BitsBeTrippin's video where she breaks down ProgPOW at devcon4.

A Quick breakdown of What is ProgPOW?
ProgPoW is a proof-of-work algorithm designed to close the efficency gap available to specialized ASICs. It utilizes almost all parts of commodity hardware (GPUs), and comes pre-tuned for the most common hardware utilized in the Ethereum network.

From reading the white paper listed on Github the main idea behind ProgPOW is NOT to achieve total ASIC-resistance. The idea is to kill the 50-1000x Efficiency gains from specialized ASIC hardware. Such as what we saw recently with Equihash 200/9 coins where 50x was achieved over GPUs. ProgPOW algorithm uses most of the GPU minus a few parts. It takes the original Eth-Hash algorithm and add more features.
The main elements of the algorithm are:
ProgPOW will Inherit Eth-Hash current DAG size meaning 2GB and 3GB will not be able to mine still. Additionally no advantage is given to Either Nvidia or AMD GPUs
ProgPoW has been designed to be a vendor-neutral proof-of-work, or more specifically, proof-of-GPU. ProgPoW has intentionally avoided using features that only one core architecture has, such as LOP3 on NVIDIA, or indexed register files on AMD.

According to Kristy, she has had direct contact with AMD and Nvidia on testing ProgPOW.
As part of its review process, ProgPoW was submitted to (and reviewed by) both AMD and NVIDIA engineers. The group known as IfDefElse — of which I am a part of — has been actively working with both companies to ensure this effectively closes the efficiency gap that we speak publicly of in our papers and articles
This does not mean one side is favored over the other. She's giving and getting input from the major GPU manufactures in order to support Crypto-mining. Additionally she says "AMD is actively working with us to optimize ProgPoW for their architectures.". Using ProgPOW optimized for GPUs rids us of bowing to Bitmain, innosilicon, halong and there scandalous ways for hardware.

ProgPOW IS NOT the "God-sent savior of all GPUS" Even Kristy understand that complete ASIC-resistance is a fallacy. This will never be achieved. However By working with GPU manufactures and Crypto Dev's we can make a coin where GPUs run along-side with ASICs, but the efficiency gains are diluted. Meaning the time and money invested into an ProgPOW ASIC machine does not make economical sense. Rather just buy the actual GPU.

Quote sources from Kristy's Medium article.

Why does Ethereum need ProgPOW?

I suggest reading Siacoin's good medium article on the subject of ASICs.
It's too much to cover here but in short why we need ProgPOW against current ASICs
At his point in time we actually don't need ProgPOW. However we do need it as time goes on. Early Bitcoin ASICs didn't dominate BTC however as time went on, they became better more efficient than GPUs, and started dominating BTC's network. The same fate happens to any "ASIC-Resistant coin" that decides it's not a big deal (looking at you ZEN). Without a set date on POS Ethereum would have suffered the same fate. As Siacoin Dev states;
We also had loose designs for ethash (Ethereum’s algorithm). Admittedly, ethash was not as easily amenable to ASICs as equihash, but as we’ve seen from products on the market today, you can still do well enough to obsolete GPUs.
What makes ASICs bad? Isn't it better to get Hash/watt ratio? This saves tons of electric. One of PoW biggest faults. I think there is nothing bad about the ASICs hardware. Equihash ASICs achieved 20 1080ti level hashrate at 1/20 of the power. That's impressive. The problem with ASIC hardware is who, where it comes from, and there shady business practices.

  1. "It’s estimated that Monero’s secret ASICs made up more than 50% of the hashrate for almost a full year before discovery, and during that time, nobody noticed." How much of ETH hashrate could be ASICs? We won't know till the fork.
  2. I've heard a lot that ASICs aren't all that big of a deal. Focus on POS. Take in account Siacoins own network hashrate which allowed bitmain/innosilicon ASICs on the network till they forked in favor of their own ASICs after just a year (Siacoins drops 96% network hashrate).
  3. "In the case of Halong’s Decred miner, we saw them “sell out” of an unknown batch size of $10,000 miners. After that, it was observed that more than 50% of the mining rewards were collecting into a single address that was known to be associated with Halong, meaning that they did keep the majority of the hashrate and profits to themselves." GPU manufactures would not and cannot be do the same.
ASICs destroy networks, centralize the pools, and hardware. Leading to them to be controlled by large entity in this case its Chinese companies. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fool. Of course this doesn't happen overnight, hence my original statement that we don't need ProgPoW now. In a years time that may totally change and it will be far to late.

GPUs allow anyone to support the network. Think of the crypto run-up. Fry's Electronics, Microceneter, online E-tailers were SOLD OUT OF GPUs. Think of that! People were buying GPUs to support the network for token rewards(worth money) How many new miners, people, got interested in crypto because of this? How about friends who saw the rigs and word of mouth spread that you could go out buy a graphics card, built a rig, and earn money? obviously we know the effects because it wasn't sustainable in the remotest. However it's an attest that GPU mineable coins makes it accessible to everyone.

For Ethereum to successfully go POS it cannot hand it network over to ASIC mining companies in the meantime. POS is on an unknown release date/timeframe. I understand Vitalk does not like PoW however that's what currently securing the network. Because of this Ethereum must maintain as much decentralization as possible with GPU mining. This is what ProgPOW does. It gives AMD and Nvidia GPUs the advantage they need over ASICs created by Bitmain or others. It allows me to continue to secure the Ethereum network with my 90 GPUs until full POS switch.

Conclusion
Did it have to be ProgPOW? No, as UBIQ has shown they created there own unique ASIC-resistant algorithm. ProgPOW was given to us by the Ifdefelse team completed. This required no work from the ETH devs at all. It's open source and has been reviewed by the Etheruem Dev team. If they haven't found any issues with it yet, I don't see why we cannot implement it.

An argument can be made that if we do switch we risk security, because we'll lose network hashrate and decrease the cost to attack the network. I have two things to say to that. One, since ProgPOW is new, Nicehash has not added it to it's network to rent yet. I wouldn't know how long nicehash would take to it add it, but it gives us a short while to get people on new ETH POW network. Additionally to attack the network, they would need massive coordination from GPU mining farms. Such a thing has never been recorded.

The 51% attacks that have happened recently (BCD/BTG/ZEN) and as of 1/8/18, ETC. These were all ASIC mineable coins. In the case of equihash coins, an ASIC that achieved 50x more efficiency had just came to market. It's not proven, but it leads me to believe a bad actor with early access to ASICs was able to attack those coins. All except ZEN have switched to Zhash algorithm. Even ZCASH/Zelcash has funded ProgPOW development. While I disagree they should do this, because that's entirely the problem too many coins using too many of the same algorithm, in the end it's up to the devs.

TL:DR; ASIC-Resistance is futile and a fallacy. PoS or other solutions are needed but to get there we need to keep PoW as Decentralized as possible this is what ProgPOW does.


Update 10/10/19 See medium article on ProgPoW FAQs.
submitted by Xazax310 to gpumining [link] [comments]

The Problem with PoW

The Problem with PoW
Miners have always had it rough..
"Frustrated Miners"

The Problem with PoW
(and what is being done to solve it)

Proof of Work (PoW) is one of the most commonly used consensus mechanisms entrusted to secure and validate many of today’s most successful cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin being one. Battle-hardened and having weathered the test of time, Bitcoin has demonstrated the undeniable strength and reliability of the PoW consensus model through sheer market saturation, and of course, its persistency.
In addition to the cost of powerful computing hardware, miners prove that they are benefiting the network by expending energy in the form of electricity, by solving and hashing away complex math problems on their computers, utilizing any suitable tools that they have at their disposal. The mathematics involved in securing proof of work revolve around unique algorithms, each with their own benefits and vulnerabilities, and can require different software/hardware to mine depending on the coin.
Because each block has a unique and entirely random hash, or “puzzle” to solve, the “work” has to be performed for each block individually and the difficulty of the problem can be increased as the speed at which blocks are solved increases.

Hashrates and Hardware Types

While proof of work is an effective means of securing a blockchain, it inherently promotes competition amongst miners seeking higher and higher hashrates due to the rewards earned by the node who wins the right to add the next block. In turn, these higher hash rates benefit the blockchain, providing better security when it’s a result of a well distributed/decentralized network of miners.
When Bitcoin first launched its genesis block, it was mined exclusively by CPUs. Over the years, various programmers and developers have devised newer, faster, and more energy efficient ways to generate higher hashrates; some by perfecting the software end of things, and others, when the incentives are great enough, create expensive specialized hardware such as ASICs (application-specific integrated circuit). With the express purpose of extracting every last bit of hashing power, efficiency being paramount, ASICs are stripped down, bare minimum, hardware representations of a specific coin’s algorithm.
This gives ASICS a massive advantage in terms of raw hashing power and also in terms of energy consumption against CPUs/GPUs, but with significant drawbacks of being very expensive to design/manufacture, translating to a high economic barrier for the casual miner. Due to the fact that they are virtual hardware representations of a single targeted algorithm, this means that if a project decides to fork and change algorithms suddenly, your powerful brand-new ASIC becomes a very expensive paperweight. The high costs in developing and manufacturing ASICs and the associated risks involved, make them unfit for mass adoption at this time.
Somewhere on the high end, in the vast hashrate expanse created between GPU and ASIC, sits the FPGA (field programmable gate array). FPGAs are basically ASICs that make some compromises with efficiency in order to have more flexibility, namely they are reprogrammable and often used in the “field” to test an algorithm before implementing it in an ASIC. As a precursor to the ASIC, FPGAs are somewhat similar to GPUs in their flexibility, but require advanced programming skills and, like ASICs, are expensive and still fairly uncommon.

2 Guys 1 ASIC

One of the issues with proof of work incentivizing the pursuit of higher hashrates is in how the network calculates block reward coinbase payouts and rewards miners based on the work that they have submitted. If a coin generated, say a block a minute, and this is a constant, then what happens if more miners jump on a network and do more work? The network cannot pay out more than 1 block reward per 1 minute, and so a difficulty mechanism is used to maintain balance. The difficulty will scale up and down in response to the overall nethash, so if many miners join the network, or extremely high hashing devices such as ASICs or FPGAs jump on, the network will respond accordingly, using the difficulty mechanism to make the problems harder, effectively giving an edge to hardware that can solve them faster, balancing the network. This not only maintains the block a minute reward but it has the added side-effect of energy requirements that scale up with network adoption.
Imagine, for example, if one miner gets on a network all alone with a CPU doing 50 MH/s and is getting all 100 coins that can possibly be paid out in a day. Then, if another miner jumps on the network with the same CPU, each miner would receive 50 coins in a day instead of 100 since they are splitting the required work evenly, despite the fact that the net electrical output has doubled along with the work. Electricity costs miner’s money and is a factor in driving up coin price along with adoption, and since more people are now mining, the coin is less centralized. Now let’s say a large corporation has found it profitable to manufacture an ASIC for this coin, knowing they will make their money back mining it or selling the units to professionals. They join the network doing 900 MH/s and will be pulling in 90 coins a day, while the two guys with their CPUs each get 5 now. Those two guys aren’t very happy, but the corporation is. Not only does this negatively affect the miners, it compromises the security of the entire network by centralizing the coin supply and hashrate, opening the doors to double spends and 51% attacks from potential malicious actors. Uncertainty of motives and questionable validity in a distributed ledger do not mix.
When technology advances in a field, it is usually applauded and welcomed with open arms, but in the world of crypto things can work quite differently. One of the glaring flaws in the current model and the advent of specialized hardware is that it’s never ending. Suppose the two men from the rather extreme example above took out a loan to get themselves that ASIC they heard about that can get them 90 coins a day? When they join the other ASIC on the network, the difficulty adjusts to keep daily payouts consistent at 100, and they will each receive only 33 coins instead of 90 since the reward is now being split three ways. Now what happens if a better ASIC is released by that corporation? Hopefully, those two guys were able to pay off their loans and sell their old ASICs before they became obsolete.
This system, as it stands now, only perpetuates a never ending hashrate arms race in which the weapons of choice are usually a combination of efficiency, economics, profitability and in some cases control.

Implications of Centralization

This brings us to another big concern with expensive specialized hardware: the risk of centralization. Because they are so expensive and inaccessible to the casual miner, ASICs and FPGAs predominantly remain limited to a select few. Centralization occurs when one small group or a single entity controls the vast majority hash power and, as a result, coin supply and is able to exert its influence to manipulate the market or in some cases, the network itself (usually the case of dishonest nodes or bad actors).
This is entirely antithetical of what cryptocurrency was born of, and since its inception many concerted efforts have been made to avoid centralization at all costs. An entity in control of a centralized coin would have the power to manipulate the price, and having a centralized hashrate would enable them to affect network usability, reliability, and even perform double spends leading to the demise of a coin, among other things.
The world of crypto is a strange new place, with rapidly growing advancements across many fields, economies, and boarders, leaving plenty of room for improvement; while it may feel like a never-ending game of catch up, there are many talented developers and programmers working around the clock to bring us all more sustainable solutions.

The Rise of FPGAs

With the recent implementation of the commonly used coding language C++, and due to their overall flexibility, FPGAs are becoming somewhat more common, especially in larger farms and in industrial setting; but they still remain primarily out of the hands of most mining enthusiasts and almost unheard of to the average hobby miner. Things appear to be changing though, one example of which I’ll discuss below, and it is thought by some, that soon we will see a day when mining with a CPU or GPU just won’t cut it any longer, and the market will be dominated by FPGAs and specialized ASICs, bringing with them efficiency gains for proof of work, while also carelessly leading us all towards the next round of spending.
A perfect real-world example of the effect specialized hardware has had on the crypto-community was recently discovered involving a fairly new project called VerusCoin and a fairly new, relatively more economically accessible FPGA. The FPGA is designed to target specific alt-coins whose algo’s do not require RAM overhead. It was discovered the company had released a new algorithm, kept secret from the public, which could effectively mine Verus at 20x the speed of GPUs, which were the next fastest hardware types mining on the Verus network.
Unfortunately this was done with a deliberately secret approach, calling the Verus algorithm “Algo1” and encouraging owners of the FPGA to never speak of the algorithm in public channels, admonishing a user when they did let the cat out of the bag. The problem with this business model is that it is parasitic in nature. In an ecosystem where advancements can benefit the entire crypto community, this sort of secret mining approach also does not support the philosophies set forth by the Bitcoin or subsequent open source and decentralization movements.
Although this was not done in the spirit of open source, it does hint to an important step in hardware innovation where we could see more efficient specialized systems within reach of the casual miner. The FPGA requires unique sets of data called a bitstream in order to be able to recognize each individual coin’s algorithm and mine them. Because it’s reprogrammable, with the support of a strong development team creating such bitstreams, the miner doesn’t end up with a brick if an algorithm changes.

All is not lost thanks to.. um.. Technology?

Shortly after discovering FPGAs on the network, the Verus developers quickly designed, tested, and implemented a new, much more complex and improved algorithm via a fork that enabled Verus to transition smoothly from VerusHash 1.0 to VerusHash 2.0 at block 310,000. Since the fork, VerusHash 2.0 has demonstrated doing exactly what it was designed for- equalizing hardware performance relative to the device being used while enabling CPUs (the most widely available “ASICs”) to mine side by side with GPUs, at a profit and it appears this will also apply to other specialized hardware. This is something no other project has been able to do until now. Rather than pursue the folly of so many other projects before it- attempting to be “ASIC proof”, Verus effectively achieved and presents to the world an entirely new model of “hardware homogeny”. As the late, great, Bruce Lee once said- “Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water.”
In the design of VerusHash 2.0, Verus has shown it doesn’t resist progress like so many other new algorithms try to do, it embraces change and adapts to it in the way that water becomes whatever vessel it inhabits. This new approach- an industry first- could very well become an industry standard and in doing so, would usher in a new age for proof of work based coins. VerusHash 2.0 has the potential to correct the single largest design flaw in the proof of work consensus mechanism- the ever expanding monetary and energy requirements that have plagued PoW based projects since the inception of the consensus mechanism. Verus also solves another major issue of coin and net hash centralization by enabling legitimate CPU mining, offering greater coin and hashrate distribution.
Digging a bit deeper it turns out the Verus development team are no rookies. The lead developer Michael F Toutonghi has spent decades in the field programming and is a former Vice President and Technical Fellow at Microsoft, recognized founder and architect of Microsoft's .Net platform, ex-Technical Fellow of Microsoft's advertising platform, ex-CTO, Parallels Corporation, and an experienced distributed computing and machine learning architect. The project he helped create employs and makes use of a diverse myriad of technologies and security features to form one of the most advanced and secure cryptocurrency to date. A brief description of what makes VerusCoin special quoted from a community member-
"Verus has a unique and new consensus algorithm called Proof of Power which is a 50% PoW/50% PoS algorithm that solves theoretical weaknesses in other PoS systems (Nothing at Stake problem for example) and is provably immune to 51% hash attacks. With this, Verus uses the new hash algorithm, VerusHash 2.0. VerusHash 2.0 is designed to better equalize mining across all hardware platforms, while favoring the latest CPUs over older types, which is also one defense against the centralizing potential of botnets. Unlike past efforts to equalize hardware hash-rates across different hardware types, VerusHash 2.0 explicitly enables CPUs to gain even more power relative to GPUs and FPGAs, enabling the most decentralizing hardware, CPUs (due to their virtually complete market penetration), to stay relevant as miners for the indefinite future. As for anonymity, Verus is not a "forced private", allowing for both transparent and shielded (private) transactions...and private messages as well"

If other projects can learn from this and adopt a similar approach or continue to innovate with new ideas, it could mean an end to all the doom and gloom predictions that CPU and GPU mining are dead, offering a much needed reprieve and an alternative to miners who have been faced with the difficult decision of either pulling the plug and shutting down shop or breaking down their rigs to sell off parts and buy new, more expensive hardware…and in so doing present an overall unprecedented level of decentralization not yet seen in cryptocurrency.
Technological advancements led us to the world of secure digital currencies and the progress being made with hardware efficiencies is indisputably beneficial to us all. ASICs and FPGAs aren’t inherently bad, and there are ways in which they could be made more affordable and available for mass distribution. More than anything, it is important that we work together as communities to find solutions that can benefit us all for the long term.

In an ever changing world where it may be easy to lose sight of the real accomplishments that brought us to this point one thing is certain, cryptocurrency is here to stay and the projects that are doing something to solve the current problems in the proof of work consensus mechanism will be the ones that lead us toward our collective vision of a better world- not just for the world of crypto but for each and every one of us.
submitted by Godballz to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Transcript of Open Developer Meeting in Discord - 7/19/2019

[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hey everyone. The channel is now open for the dev meeting.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hi
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Hi all!
JerozLast Friday at 3:59 PM
:wave:
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Topics: Algo stuff - x22rc, Ownership token for Restricted Assets and Assets.
JerozLast Friday at 4:00 PM
@Milo is also here from coinrequest.
MiloLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Hi :thumbsup:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:00 PM
welcome, @Milo
TronLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Great.
@Milo Was there PRs for Android and iOS?
MiloLast Friday at 4:01 PM
Yes, I've made a video. Give me a second I'll share it asap.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
I missed the iOS one.
MiloLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Well its 1 video, but meant for all.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Ah, there's an issue but no pull request (yet?)
https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenwallet-ios/issues/115
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:03 PM
nice @Milo
MiloLast Friday at 4:04 PM
Can it be that I have no video post rights?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
In discord?
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
yes?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:05 PM
just a link?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
Standard version has a file limit afaik
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:05 PM
try now
gave permissions
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
it's not published yet on Youtube, since I didn't knew when it would be published in the wallets
file too big. Hold on i'll put it on youtube and set it on private
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:06 PM
no worries ipfs it...:yum:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:06 PM
ok, just send link when you can
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:07 PM
So guys. We released Ravencoin v2.4.0!
JerozLast Friday at 4:08 PM
If you like the code. Go update them nodes! :smiley:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:08 PM
We are recommending that you are upgrading to it. It fixes a couple bugs in the code base inherited from bitcoin!
MiloLast Friday at 4:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t\_g7NpFXm6g&feature=youtu.be
sorry for the hold up
YouTube
Coin Request
Raven dev Gemiddeld
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:09 PM
thanks short and sweet!!
KAwARLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Is coin request live on the android wallet?
TronLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Nice video.
It isn't in the Play Store yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Well, this is the first time in a while where we have this many devs online. What questions do y'all have?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:11 PM
Algo questions?
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:11 PM
sure
KAwARLast Friday at 4:11 PM
KK
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:12 PM
what are the proposed 22 algos in x22r? i could only find the original 16 plus 5 on x21.
TronLast Friday at 4:12 PM
Likely the 5 from x21 and find one more.
We need to make sure they're all similar in time profile.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:14 PM
should we bother fixing a asic-problem that we dont know exists for sure or not?
TronLast Friday at 4:14 PM
That's the 170 million dollar question.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:14 PM
I would prefer to be proactive not reactive.
imo
JerozLast Friday at 4:14 PM
same
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
RIPEMD160 is a golden oldie but not sure on hash speed compared to the others.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
in my mind we should focus on the restricted messaging etc
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:15 PM
probably won't know if the action was needed until after you take the action
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
we are at risk of being interventionistas
acting under opacity
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
Needs to spit out at least 256 bit. Preferably 512 bit.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
ok
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
If it isn't 512 bit, it'll cause some extra headache for the GPU mining software.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:16 PM
i seek to avoid iatrogenics
TronLast Friday at 4:16 PM
Similar to the early problems when all the algos except the first one were built for 64-bytes (512-bit) inputs.
Had to look that one up. TIL iatrogenics
JerozLast Friday at 4:17 PM
I have to google most of @liqdmetal's vocabulary :smile:
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:17 PM
@Tron tldr: basically the unseen, unintended negative side effects of the asic "cure"
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:18 PM
10 dolla word
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:19 PM
we need a really strong case to intervene in what has been created.
TronLast Friday at 4:19 PM
I agree. I'm less concerned with the technical risk than I am the potential split risk experienced multiple times by Monero.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:20 PM
tron do you agree that forking the ravencoin chain presents unique risks compared to other chains that aren't hosting assets?
JerozLast Friday at 4:21 PM
Yes, if you fork, you need to figure out for each asset which one you want to support.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:21 PM
yeah. and the asset issuer could have a chain preference
TronLast Friday at 4:22 PM
@Sevvy (y rvn pmp?) Sure. Although, I'd expect that the asset issuers will be honor the assets on the dominant chain. Bigger concern is the branding confusion of multiple forks. See Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV for an example. We know they're different, but do non-crypto folks?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:22 PM
I thought that the take-away from the recently published analyses and discussions was that ASICs for RVN may be active, but if so then they are being not much more effective than GPUs.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:22 PM
agreed on all accounts there tron
TronLast Friday at 4:23 PM
I'm not yet convinced ASICs are on the network.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:23 PM
It would be better to damage an asic builder by forking after they made major expenses. Creating for them the type of deficit that could be negated by just buying instead of mining. Asic existence should be 100 percent confirmed before fork.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:23 PM
170million dollar question is right.lol
TronLast Friday at 4:24 PM
I've had someone offer to connect me to the folks at Fusion Silicon.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:25 PM
yes. and if they are active on the network they are not particularly good ASICs
which makes it a moot point probably
TronLast Friday at 4:26 PM
The difficult part of this problem is that by the time everyone agrees that ASICs are problematic on the network, then voting the option in is likely no longer an option.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
yes. part of me wonders if we would say "okay, the clock on the asic countdown is reset by this new algo. but now the race is on"
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:26 PM
There are always risks when making a change that will fork the network. We want wait to long though, as tron said. It wont be a voting change. it will be a mandatory change at a block number.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
acknowledge the inevitable
MiloLast Friday at 4:27 PM
I had just a small question from my side. When do you think the android version would be published, and do you maybe have a time-frame for the others?
TronLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Quick poll. How would everyone here feel about a BIP9 option - separate from the new features that can be voted in?
KAwARLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Maybe voting should not be a strictly blockchain vote. A republic and a democratic voice?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:27 PM
@Milo We can try and get a beta out next week, and publish soon after that.
MiloLast Friday at 4:28 PM
@[Dev-Happy] Blondfrogs :thumbsup::slight_smile:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:28 PM
BIP9 preemptive vote. I like it.
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The advantage to a BIP9 vote is that it puts the miners and mining pools at a clear majority before activation.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Centralisation is inevitable unless we decide to resist it. ASIC's are market based and know the risks and rewards possible. A key step in resisting is sending a message. An algo change to increase asic resistance is imho a strong message. A BIP9 vote now would also be an indicator of bad actors early....
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The disadvantage is that it may not pass if the will isn't there.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Before assets are on main net and cause additional issues.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:31 PM
I am not schooled in coding to have an educated voice. I only understand social problems and how it affects the economy.
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:31 PM
All are equal on RVN
TronLast Friday at 4:31 PM
It is primarily a social problem. The tech change is less risky and is easier than the social.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:32 PM
All can have a share....people who want more of a share however pay for the privilege and associated risks.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:33 PM
Assets and exchange listings need to be consistent and secure.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:36 PM
I'm still not entirely clear on what the overall goal to the algo change is? Is it just to brick the supposed ASICs (unknown 45%) which could still be FPGAs as seen from the recent block analysis posted in the nest. Is the goal to never let ASICs on? Is it to brick FPGAs ultimately. Are we making Raven strictly GPU only? I'm still unclear
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:37 PM
What about the future issue of ASICs returning after a BIP9 fork "soon"? Are all following the WP as a community? i.e asic resistant or are we prepared to change that to asic resistant for early coin emission. Ideally we should plan for the future. Could the community make a statement that no future algo changes will be required to incentivise future public asic manufacturers?
Lol. Same question @brutoid
brutoidLast Friday at 4:37 PM
Haha it is
You mind-beamed me!
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:38 PM
The is up to the community.
Currently, the feel seems like the community is anti asic forever.
The main issue is getting people to upgrade.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:38 PM
Clarity is important. Otherwise we are attacking windmills like Don Quixote.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:39 PM
I'm not getting the feeling of community ASIC hate if the last few weeks of discussion are anything to go by?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:39 PM
A unilateral non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height is a serious thing, but anti-ASIC has been part of the RVN philosophy since the whitepaper and is therefore appropriate for that purpose.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:39 PM
We can use the latest release as an example. It was a non forking release, announced for 2 weeks. and only ~30% of the network has upgraded.
TronLast Friday at 4:39 PM
@Hans_Schmidt Well said.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:40 PM
I'm not concerned about a "asic hardware problem" so much as I believe it more likely what we are seeing is several big fish miners (perhaps a single really big fish). For now I recommend standing pat on x16r. In the future I can see an algo upgrade fork to keep the algo up to date. If we start fighting against dedicated x16r hashing machines designed and built to secure our network we are more likely to go down in flames. The custom SHA256 computers that make the bitcoin the most secure network in existence are a big part of that security. If some party has made an asic that performs up to par or better than FPGA or GPU on x16r, that is a positive for this network, a step towards SHA256 security levels. It is too bad the community is in the dark regarding their developments. Therefore I think the community has to clarify its stance towards algorithm changes. I prefer a policy that will encourage the development of mining software, bitstreams and hardware by as many parties as possible. The imminent threat of ALGO fork screws the incentive up for developers.
JerozLast Friday at 4:40 PM
@brutoid the vocal ones are lenient towards asics, but the outcome of the 600+ votes seemed pretty clear.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:40 PM
This is my confusion
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
More hashes are only better if the cost goes up proportionally. Machines that do more hashes for less $ doesn't secure the network more, and trends towards centralization.
JerozLast Friday at 4:41 PM
I would argue for polling ever so often as it certainly will evolve dynamically with the state of crypto over time.
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
Measure security in two dimensions. Distribution, and $/hash.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:41 PM
and volume of hash
traysiLast Friday at 4:42 PM
45% of the hashrate going to one party is unhealthy, and standing pat on x16r just keeps that 45% where it is.
TronLast Friday at 4:42 PM
Volume doesn't matter if the cost goes down. For example, lets say software shows up that does 1000x better than the software from yesterday, and everyone moves to it. That does not add security. Even if the "difficulty" and embedded hashes took 1000x more attempts to find.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:42 PM
My issue is defintely centralization of hash and not so much what machine is doing it. I mine with both GPU and FPGA. Of course, the FPGAs are not on raven
TJayLast Friday at 4:44 PM
easy solution is just to replace a few of 16 current hash functions, without messing with x21r or whatever new shit
TronLast Friday at 4:44 PM
How do folks here feel about allowing CPUs back in the game?
traysiLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern with CPUs
brutoidLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Yes please.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:44 PM
the poll votes seem not very security conscious. More of day miners chasing profits. I love them bless! Imho the future is bright for raven, however these issues if not sorted out now will bite hard long term when asset are on the chain and gpu miners are long gone.....
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
How has the testing of restricted assets been on the test net?
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Agreed. I dont think x16r is obsolete like that yet however
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab not enough testing at the moment.
HedgerLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Yes, how is the Testing going?
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Like randomX or how are cpus going to be back in the game?
TronLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab Just getting started at testing at the surface level (RPC calls), and fixing as we go.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
And or any updates on the review of dividend code created by the community
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:45 PM
if the amount of hash the unknown pool has is fixed as standarderror indicated then waiting for the community of FPGAers to get onto raven might be advantageous if the fork doesn't hurt FPGAs.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Can't rememeber who was on it
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab But we are working on it...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:46 PM
more hash for votes
JerozLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Maldon is, @Zaab
TronLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab There are unit tests and functional tests already, but we'd like more.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab Dividend code is currently adding test cases for better security. Should have more update on that next meeting
KAwARLast Friday at 4:46 PM
Absolute democracy seems to resemble anarchy or at least civil war. In EVE online they have a type of community voice that get voted in by the community.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:46 PM
No worries was just curious if it was going as planned or significant issues were being found
Obviously some hiccups are expected
More testing is always better!
TronLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Who in here is up for a good civil war? :wink:
ZaabLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Tron v Bruce. Celebrity fight night with proceeds to go to the RVN dev fund
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:48 PM
Cagefight or mudpit?
JerozLast Friday at 4:48 PM
talking about dev funds..... :wink:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:49 PM
and there goes the conversation....
KAwARLast Friday at 4:49 PM
I am trying to be serious...
ZaabLast Friday at 4:49 PM
Sorry back to the ascii topic!
traysiLast Friday at 4:49 PM
@Tron What do we need in order to make progress toward a decision on the algo? Is there a plan or a roadmap of sorts to get us some certainty about what we're going to do?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:50 PM
Could we have 3 no BIP9 votes? No1 Friendly to asics, retain status quo. No2 change to x17r minimal changes etc, with no additional future PoW/algo upgrades. No3. Full Asic resistance x22r and see what happens...
:thonk~1:
Sounds messy....
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Right now we're in research mode. We're building CNv4 so we can run some metrics. If that goes well, we can put together x22rc and see how it performs. It will likely gore everyone's ox. CPUs can play, GPUs work, but aren't dominant. ASICs VERY difficult, and FPGAs will have a tough time.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Yeah i feel like the results would be unreliable
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Is this good, or do we lose everyone's vote?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Fpga will be dead
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
why isn;t a simple XOR or something on the table?
ZaabLast Friday at 4:52 PM
The multiple bip9 that is
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
something asic breaking but doesn't greatly complicate ongoing efforts for FPGA being my point.
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:52 PM
How are you going to vote for x22rc?
Because if by hashrate that wouldn't pass.
traysiLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Personally I like the idea of x22rc but I'd want to investigate the botnet threat if CPUs are allowed back in.
TronLast Friday at 4:52 PM
XOR is on the table, and was listed in my Medium post. But, the social risk of chain split remains, for very little gain.
traysiLast Friday at 4:53 PM
@Lokar -=Kai=- A small change means that whoever has 45% can probably quickly adapt.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Research sounds good. x22rc could be reduce to x22r for simplicity...
TronLast Friday at 4:53 PM
x22r is a viable option. No CNv4.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Don't know how much time we have to play with though...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:53 PM
if they have FPGAs yes if they have ASIC then not so much, but I guess that gets to the point, what exactly are we trying to remove from the network?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:54 PM
Guys my name is Arsen and we designed x16r fpga on bcus. Just about to release it to the public. I am buzzdaves partner.
Cryptonight
Will kill us
But agreed
Asic is possible on x16r
And you dont need 256 core
Cores
traysiLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hi Arsen. Are you saying CN will kill "us" meaning RVN, or meaning FPGA?
JerozLast Friday at 4:55 PM
This is what im afraid of ^ an algo change killing FPGA as I have the feeling there is a big fpga community working on this
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Fpgas ))
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:55 PM
I am also about to release X16R for CVP13 + BCU1525 FPGA's. I'm open to algo changes but I really don't believe in CPU mining because of botnets. Any CNv4 shifts 100% to CPU mining, even if it is only 1 of the 22 functions.
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:55 PM
namely FPGAs that aren;t memory equipped
like fast mem
not ddr
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hbm non hbm
Cryptonight
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:56 PM
Right now with both Buzzdave/Altered Silicon and myself (Zetheron) about to release X16R for FPGA's, then the 45% miner's share will decrease to 39% or less.
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
Will be dead for fpga
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:56 PM
sound so x22r is fpga "friendly" ... more so than asic anyway...
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
But a change must be planned
X16r is no way possible to avoid asics
TJayLast Friday at 4:56 PM
@LSJI07 - MBIT I would say less friendly...
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:57 PM
As I mentioned in thenest discussion, asic resistance increases with the square of the number of functions, so X21R is more asic resistant than X16R, but both are pretty resistant
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:58 PM
Yeah more algos make it heavier on ASIC
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 4:58 PM
My interpretation of the whitepaper was that we used x16r as it was brand new (thus ASIC resistant), and that was to ensure a fair launch... We've launched... I don't like the idea of constantly forking to avoid the inevitable ASICs.
x16r was a great "experiment" before we had any exchange listings... that ship has sailed though... not sure about all these x22rs lmnop changes
KAwARLast Friday at 5:00 PM
I believe that it is easier to change the direction of a bicycle than an oil tanker. We feel more like a train. We should lay out new tracks and test on them and find benefits that are acceptable to everyone except train robbers. Then open the new train station with no contentious feelings except a silently disgruntled minority group. ???
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 5:01 PM
The most productive action the community can do now re ASICs is to voice support for the devs to make a non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height if/when the need is clear. That removes the pressure to act rashly to avoid voting problems.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:01 PM
Thats why im proposing to fork at least once to a more asic resistant algo (but FPGA "friendly/possible"), with the proviso ideally that no more PoW algo forks are require to provide future ASICs some opportunity to innovate with silicon and efficiency.
TJayLast Friday at 5:01 PM
folks should take into account, that high end FPGAs like BCU1525 on x16r can't beat even previous gen GPUs (Pascal) in terms of hash cost. so they aren't a threat to miners community
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
A proper change
Requires proper research
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
Just so I'm clear here, we are trying to boot ASICS, don't want CPUs because of Botnets, and are GPU and FPGA friendly right?
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
It is not a quick one day process
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
If there is a bip9 vote there needs to be a clear explanation as I feel most in the community don't understand exactly what we are trying to fix
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt I like that route. It has some game theoretics. It gives time for miners to adapt. It is only used if needed. It reduces the likelihood of ASICs dominating the network, or even being built.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Hey guys. great convo. We are of course looking to do the best thing for the community and miner. We are going to be signing off here though.
justinjjaLast Friday at 5:03 PM
TJay that comes down to power cost.
If your paying 4c/kw gpus all the way.
But if your a home miner in europe an fpga is your only chance
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt How do we decide the block limit and when sufficient evidence is available? I would say we have had much compelling information to date...
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Thanks for participating. and keep up the good work :smiley:
Have a good weekend.
CAWWWW
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
I haven't seen any compelling evidence of ASICs - yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:03 PM
:v:
JerozLast Friday at 5:04 PM
I suggest to continue discussion in #development and #thenest :smiley:
thanks all!
TronLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Cheers everyone!
KAwARLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Agree with Hans.
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
thanks Tron
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Ending here. continue in Nest if wanted
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
I am waiting for compelling evidence myself.
submitted by mrderrik to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

In Stunning Move, Bitmain Announces It's Launching A Doorstopper Business

MARCH 16, 2018 - Bitmain, the world's largest Bitcoin ASIC manufacturer, stunned cryptocurrency investors by announcing that the company is launching a doorstopper business.
"While cryptocurrency mining is certainly a profitable endeavor, Bitmain sees opportunities in other sectors as well," Bitmain said in an official press release Friday. "The high-end doorstopper market is one in which Bitmain can make a real difference."
At the same time as the press release, Bitmain began accepting pre-orders for the Antminer X3, the first product in its new doorstopper series. The Antminer X3 sold out in seconds, at a cost of $12,000 apiece.
When asked why a doorstopper had the word "miner" in its name, Jihan Wu, the CEO of Bitmain, stated that "The Antminer X3 looks, works and sounds like a cryptocurrency miner. It even has a built-in 550 watt heater that hashes an obsolete algorithm."
Wu justified his business decision by citing a precedent: "Electroneum built a fake miner, why can't we?"
Bitmain refused to comment on whether or not they will be launching Monero Cash.
submitted by KnifeOfPi2 to Monero [link] [comments]

Satoshi quotes prove that the original bitcoin scaling plan was very clear from day one. And guess what ? it was not to have a centrally planned quota below market demand by the use of massive censorship and demonizing miners

An anonymous individual named Theymos controls the 2 main places where discussion happens: bitcointalkforums and bitcoin subreddit, and is known for censoring all discussion favoring certain improvement proposals mainly in the scaling debate. The mere fact that only 1 person can control and censor online social interactivity should be a big warning sign for any liberty minded individual.
I have no proof that this individual is linked to a certain company other than the fact that they both started to act in this space at about the same time, Blockstream was funded in 2014 and Theymos started censorship about rising the blocksize in 2015. Also note that the behavior of this individual serves the motives of the said company that explicitly explained that they plan on collecting fees on their own side-solution that the other (original) scaling solution would not allow them to collect.
The direction they are pushing is also allowing another company named Bitfury to de-anonymize transactions incredibly more easily. Bitfury and Blockstream have both supported the same path for bitcoin (segwit), and both profit from it or plan to do it.
The original scaling plan was however very clear, as per cited in the original whitepaper or satoshi himself:
The [current] cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions
= bitcoin is invented as digital cash for small casual transactions against the high-fees of the current system.
The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making. If the majority were based on one-IP-address-one-vote, it could be subverted by anyone able to allocate many IPs. Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. [...] They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism
= proof of work is the only way to vote in the system = miners are to be trusted to choose the path of the network
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
= segwit destroys the very definition of bitcoin
With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory
= Moore's Law ensures that we never reach a scaling limit
source for all of the above quotes: https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don’t have it are already obsolete.
= satoshi wrote some code on how to prepare a hardfork to a bigger blocksize YEARS ago
“At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.” [...] Bitcoin generation should end up where it’s cheapest.
= satoshi envisioned asics, mining farms, and "specialized hardware" like asicboost, and that mining will end up in farms where it is cheap to mine
Bitcoin can already scale much larger than [Visa] with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling.
satoshi in 2009, can it be any more clear ?
submitted by zhell_ to btc [link] [comments]

Will crypto mining kill polar bears?

Bitcoin mining uses as much electricity as a small country. Many people hate it for this reason, its one of the more popular arguments against crypto currencies. Will crypto mining kill polar bears? I think not. I think it will help save polar bears. "Bear" with me.
Germany produces a significant part of its electricity from renewable energy: wind and solar. As we all know, these sources are intermittent and seasonal, as is demand. When the share of renewable energy in the overall energy mix becomes large enough, the result is inevitable: temporary and seasonal overcapacity. This isnt just theoretical, energy prices in germany and the UK where effectively negative last Christmas: http://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-negative-electricity-cost-2017-12//?r=AU&IR=T
As explained in the above article, this isnt a rare freak occurrence, its expected and this will have to be become much more common if as a society, we want to transition away from fossil fuels. Because to do that we need (much) more renewable energy sources. A study I saw for Germany calculated they needed at least 89% more capacity, just to handle peak loads. But that also implies an incredible amount of overcapacity when demand isnt anywhere near peak, or when supply is above average due to favorable weather. Storing excess renewable electricity, in most places is very expensive and inefficient. So much so that its rarely even done. This is a major problem. Wind turbines are therefore feathered, solar panels turned off, excess electricity dumped in giant electrical heaters, offered for free or even offered at negative prices. Renewable energy may have become cheaper than other forms per KWH, but thats only if when you can sell all of your production. And its only true if the consumption occurs near the renewable energy source and not 100s or 1000s of kilometers further. Building capacity that can only be used 50% or even 10% of the time, or building infrastructure to store surplus electricity is still very expensive, as is transporting renewable energy over long distances.
I know what you're thinking. Mining wont help here, because mining intermittently is something that seems crazy today; miners keep their expensive machines on 24/7. But thats only because today, the overall cost structure of a (bitcoin) miner is heavily tilted towards hardware depreciation. Particularly for anyone paying retail prices for mining asics. This will change completely, because of two related reasons:
1) mining efficiency improvements will taper off.
Mining asics have been progressing extremely rapidly, from being based on CPUs and FPGA's, to using 20 year old obsolete 180nm process technology in the first asics, to state of the art 16nm chips today. This has resulted in at least a million fold improvement in efficiency in just a few years, which in turn lead to hardware investments that needed to be recovered in a few months or even weeks (!) before they were obsolete. Opportunity cost has been so high, that miners have literally chartered 747s to transport new mining equipment from the manufacturer in China to their datacenters in the US.
This cant and wont last. 12nm and 7nm asics are about to be produced, or are being produced now. It doesnt get better than that today, and it wont for many years to come. Moore's law is often cited to show efficiency will keep going up. That may be true, but until now the giant leaps we have seen had nothing to do with moore's law, which "only" predicts a doubling every 18 months. Moore's law is also hitting a brick wall (you cant scale transistors smaller than atoms), and only states that transistor density increases. Not that chips become more efficient or faster, which increasingly is no longer happening (new cpu's are getting more cores, but run at comparable speeds and comparable power consumption to previous generations).
What all this means is that these upcoming state of the art mining asics will remain competitive for many years, at least 3, possibly more than 5 years, and thus can be used and written off over that many years. But they will still consume electricity during all those years, shifting the overall costs from hardware to electricity.
2) Mining is still too profitable (for anyone making their own asics) and mining hardware is therefore still too expensive (for everyone else)
Miner hardware production rate simply hasnt yet been able to keep up with demand and soaring bitcoin prices. This leads to artificially low mining difficulty, making mining operationally profitable even with expensive electricity, and this also leads to exuberant hardware profit margins. You can see this easily, just look at the difficulty of bitcoin. When the price dropped by 70%, did you see a corresponding drop in difficulty? No, no drop at all, it just keeps growing exponentially. That only makes sense because we are not yet near saturation, or near marginal electricity costs for bitmain & Co. Its not worth it yet for them to turn off their miners. Its not even worth it yet for residential miners. Another piece of evidence for this, is bitmains estimated $4 billion profit. But mining is a zero sum game, over time, market forces will drive hardware prices and the mining itself to become only marginally profitable. We're clearly not close to that -yet. You might think so as a private miner, but thats only because you overpaid for your hardware.
Lets look at todays situation to get an idea. An Antminer S9 retails for $2300 and uses ~1300W at the wall. If you write off the hardware over a year, electricity and hardware costs balance out at an electricity price of $0.2/KWH. Anything below that, and hardware becomes the major cost. But how will that evolve?
As difficulty keeps going up, bitcoin mining revenue per asic will decline proportionally, until demand for mining asics will eventually taper off. To counter that, prices of asics will be lowered until they approach marginal production costs, which by my estimate is closer to $200 than $2000. Let say a 1300W S9 equivalent at that point gets sold at $400 leaving bitmain a healthy profit margin; that would mean each year a miner would spend 5x more on electricity than on hardware. Hardware will remain competitive for more than a single year though. Say you write it off over 3 years, now you're spending 15x more on electricity than on hardware. Intermittent mining like 50% of the time, but with free or virtually free electricity will become economical long before that.
By now, I will hopefully have convinced you of the viability of mining with intermittent excess renewable energy; intermittent mining with renewable energy will not only become viable, it will become the only way to do it profitably. Renewable energy at the source is already cheaper than any carbon burning source. Even in Quatar, they install solar plants because its cheaper than burning their own gas. Its transporting and storing the electricity that usually is the problem. Gas can easily be transported and stored. Wind and solar energy can not. And thats a massive problem for the industry. But mining doesnt need either. You can mine pretty much anywhere and anytime. All you need besides electricity, is a few containers and an internet connection for a solar plant or wind farm to monetize excess energy.
Moreover, mining is a zero sum game, a race to the bottom. As long as its profitable for green energy providers to deploy more hardware (which will be true as long as they can at least recover their hardware investment), difficulty will go up. Until it becomes unprofitable for anyone who has to pay for his electricity. No one gives oil, coal or gas away for free, so anyone depending on those sources of electricity, can not remain competitive. If bitcoin price were to go up so much, that there isnt enough renewable electricity production in the world to accommodate the hashrate, bitcoin miners will simply install more solar and wind farms. Not because of their ecological awareness, but because it makes the most financial sense. And during peak demand periods, why wouldnt they turn off the miners and sell their electricity to the grid for a premium?
Basically crypto mining would fund renewable energy development, and solve the exact problem laid out in the article linked above: provide overcapacity of renewable energy to handle grid peak loads, without needing any government funding or taxation on carbon based sources, without needing expensive and very inefficient energy storage. From the perspective of a green energy producer, energy storage, like a battery or hydrogen production, is just an expensive and intermediate step between producing electricity and getting paid for that electricity. Crypto mining will do the same thing, converting excess electricity in to cash, only much more efficiently.
TL:DR, deploying more renewable electricity overcapacity is both very expensive and very necessary if we want to save polar bears. Financing for these large scale green energy projects will either have to come from tax payer money to store or subsidise the largely unused excess electricity, or it will come from crypto mining. Market forces will drive crypto mining to use the cheapest energy. Renewable energy already is cheaper per KWH than carbon based power, and nothing is cheaper than excess and thus free (or negative value) renewable energy. Bitcoin mining's carbon foot print will therefore become ~zero. If you take in to account the effect of financing and subsidizing large scale renewable energy development that can also be used to supply the grid during peak demand periods, its carbon footprint will be hugely negative.
BTW, if you wonder what Blockchains LLC is going to do with 61K acres near Tesla's factory; my guess is solar plants and crypto mining. Expect to see renewable energy development and crypto mining to merge in to one single industry. Check out envion to get a glimpse of this future. Im not endorsing their token as an investment, I havent researched it at all, but the market they are going after is a very real one and its about to explode.
submitted by Vertigo722 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

ELi5/AMA Cryptocurrency & Mining Thread

Based upon interest shown in my post here earlier today, the following is a ELi5 and AMA post on my perspective as a cryptocurrency investor and miner, specifically how I see the cryptocurrency space impacting AMD's performance in the near to medium term (0-3 years).
My Background:
I am not a computer scientist, and many on this form know significantly more than I ever will in regards to computing, computing hardware design, and software. Take this into consideration when reading my post, and feel free to open up discussion if you disagree with me. I am always looking to learn / assess new perspectives.
I do though have a background in STEM, until recently have followed AMD, Intel, and NVIDIA closely in regards to consumer and enthusiast hardware release, and have been mining Ethereum on a hand-built machine for roughly the past year, and investing in crypto for a decent amount of time as well. Given this, I believe that I can provide insight into the cryptocurrency and crypto mining realm, which is tightly coupled to AMD's GPU sales.
My Motivation for Writing This:
About a year ago I was a daily browser of this sub. Check my profile history if you wish. It was this very sub that gave me confidence to make my first investments outside of a 401k. Through this sub’s members I laid a foundation for making future investments that I will carry with me through life.
How I Got Started In Cryptocurrency:
Ironically, my start in cryptocurrency came through this very sub. As a daily follower of AMD_STOCK, during the initial Ethereum run-up early last year AMD and NVIDIA GPU’s were selling like hotcakes. Prices for GPU’s released months prior were rising instead of falling. I had no clue what a cryptocurrency even was. I distinctly remember reading through a post on this sub explaining the GPU shortage. It was simply “Ethereum”. I don’t know why, but this post struck me more than it should have. How could a shortage of hundreds of thousands of GPUs, totaling millions of dollars, be summed up in one word? This was the entrance to the rabbit whole that is cryptocurrency, or what I think is more telling, the financial and supply chain tech revolution.
Cryptocurrency Eli5:
Cryptocurrency is currently so much more than Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency is currently the financial, supply chain, + whatever else it ends up touching, technology revolution that is currently taking place as we speak. Cryptocurrency simply is a set of protocols that allow monetary/data transaction, smart contracts (think “if a, do b”), and/or storage in a distributed and trustless way, without a middle man.
Eli5:
It is a system that allows you and little Johnny from down the street to pay each other allowance money for things, without your mommies needing to get involved to make sure no one is getting cheated (Peer to Peer Payments). It can also allow you and Johnny to make deals with each other, and Johnny won’t be able to get out of it by saying “just kidding” later on (Smart Contracts). In both of these cases, you and Johnny write down the agreed upon payment, deal, information on a piece of paper, sign your names, and then send it out to everyone you know. Once those people recognize your and Johnny’s signature they sign it as well (distributed ledger). If there are any disagreements later, you look at the piece of paper and see what actually happened. For much more detail, visit cryptocurrency or some of the other cryptocurrency subs.
Proof of Work (PoW) vs Proof of Stake (PoS):
I had talked previously about handing out a copy of transactions to other peers for consensus. I was referring to a distributed ledger. This allows those who use the network to look over previous transactions and come to an agreement upon past history, avoid double spends (someone giving the same dollar to two different people), and verify a user’s current funds. Well, it doesn’t exactly work like that, and different cryptocurrencies employ different “consensus mechanism’s”. IT IS THESE CONSENSUS MECHANISMS THAT ARE OF IMPORTANCE AS AMD INVESTORS. I’ll try to go through the most prominent ones below.
Consensus Mechanisms:
Eli5: They solve the question: What if you and Johnny both hand out copies containing different information? Who decides what the truth is?
Proof of Work (PoW): Eli5: Proof of Work is like if you and Johnny hand out copies of your transactions to each of your classmates, the teacher decides that this isn’t a democracy, and that not everyone gets to vote on what they think happened. The teacher says that for each math problem in today’s math quiz a student gets right, they get one vote to put in the jar up at the front of the class. After the quiz is done and everyone puts their votes in the jar, the teacher then reaches in and grabs a random vote on if you or Johnny were telling the truth. It is then recorded. Also, the student’s who’s vote was selected gets a gold star today (mining rewards, what makes this all profitable for miners). How is AMD involved in this? AMD’s GPU’s are what solves the math problems for the students in this example. The more math problems that they can solve correctly before the quiz is over, the higher chance that they have at getting to decide what is recorded on the ledger, and thus receive mining rewards (free cryptocurrency).
Proof of Stake (PoS):
Eli5: Well the teacher decided that she didn’t like doing math tests anymore because they took too much time and thought that the paper and pencils consumed during the quiz’s were a waste of the school’s resources (electricity used in PoW). She decided that instead, each student would get one vote based upon how many gold stars (how much cryptocurrency) they already have. But the catch is, if a student is caught lying somehow on their vote, they get all of their current gold stars taken away. This is what is “At Stake” in the Proof of Stake model. How does this differ from PoW from an AMD perspective? Well, if you haven’t noticed, there are no more math problems to be solved in this model, thus high-performance GPUs are not necessary for PoS mining. This provides several advantages in terms of energy savings, but would not be good for AMD’s sales.
The Current State of The Market in Regards to PoW vs PoS:
Currently, a majority of cryptocurrencies operate on the PoW model, but that ratio is dwindling as currencies switch over to PoS models. PoS is seen to provide several advantages, with major ones being energy efficiency and a potential reduced transaction time. Major cryptocurrencies using PoW include Ethereum, Monero, Zcash, etc.. with the most profitable over the past year usually being Ethereum. Ethereum is currently planning on switching over to a PoS model, but that transition has been delayed, and now has planned to first transition to a hybrid model of PoW and PoS before fully transferring over to PoS. I have not heard any rumors from Monero or Zcash about transitioning over to PoS in the short term.
My Perspective/Predictions on AMD GPU Sales Over the Short and Medium Term:
  1. Cryptocurrency over the medium term will continue to flourish/rise. There may be a major “crash” in the future, but I believe that is at least a year away, and a crash event would still leave the total market cap higher than it currently is valued at ~600 Billion dollars.
  2. It will be 1+ year before a significant portion of current major PoW currencies phase out PoW for PoS.
  3. AMD will continue to sell out GPU products for the foreseeable future (~1 year) as 1 & 2 above create a recipe for sustained/increased profitability in cryptocurrency mining.
  4. Long Term – PoW will likely fade away as PoS grows in popularity. I foresee this happening in the 1-3 year time frame. What happens to AMD? Well, if the transition happens fast, gaming GPUs will flood the market and their new hardware sales will obviously be challenged to compete. If the transition happens slower, I see the trend being less violent to AMD as a company if they can keep performance improvements from generation to generation up. Although there will still be a flood of cheap used hardware on the market, before sufficient hardware floods the market new higher performance hardware could be released making old hardware obsolete for mid to high end gamers. This would be a huge win for AMD investors as it would minimize any impact to sales.
  5. Because of the statement above, pay close attention to the PoS transition timeframe for Ethereum. This will be the first mass selloff of consumer GPUs.
Things I did not Cover:
  1. AMD GPUs are typically more profitable than NVIDIA’s for cryptocurrency mining and why.
  2. You cannot mine Bitcoin with consumer GPUs profitably. They require custom hardware (ASIC).
  3. Getting into the actual process of how to mine (see the many Ethereum mining subs like ethermining for answers).
  4. Have I made a profit – Yes, I have paid off my investment and then some.
  5. What do I think of mining vs just investing – Okay I’ll answer this one. I personally would choose to invest directly into the cryptocurrencies over mining, unless you are using your existing gaming GPU, as I believe that investing will yield potentially an order of magnitude higher ROI over the next 2-5 years. Start with cryptocurrency and go from there. If you have specific questions, feel free to PM me. This is coming from a miner mind you.
  6. What coins are profitable and what to mine? This website is a good resource: https://whattomine.com/
  7. My exit plan for the market? Well, I’ve stated above that I think a major crash (greater than 50%, we see 50% crashes every 3 or so months, but these are often largely exceeded by gains after) in this market will likely dip to current or slightly below current total market cap. I could be wrong though, but that’s a risk I am willing to take given my deep dive on this space. I currently hold currencies that will pay PoS mining rewards. I plan to sell these rewards.
Thanks for reading guys. I hope you found some useful information. If you have questions or see anything you disagree with feel free to comment!
TLDR: I see cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency mining, and thus AMD GPU sales holding strong for the foreseeable short term ~1 year. This is just my opinion, do your own research, I could be wrong, but I live in this space.
submitted by Usrname_Not_Relevant to AMD_Stock [link] [comments]

Litecoin Dogecoin Scrypt 1200 KH/s Mining Rig 3 x 7850 Bitcoin Core Propaganda against ASIC miners & Bitmain Land ASIC Chip Bitcoin Mining Machine Work Video New Bitmain ASIC Decred Miner  Rx670/Rx680 Coming Soon*  McAfee Bitcoin Farm Sued  ETH HF Info The Fastest and Most Powerful Bitcoin Miners in the World 2019

Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Sign up to join this community. Anybody can ask a question Anybody can answer The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Bitcoin . Home ; Questions ; Tags ; Users ; Unanswered ; Is asic-resistance obsolete? Ask Question Asked 1 year, 11 months ago. Active 1 ... This means that expensive ASIC mining rigs could become obsolete out of the blue. Because they can’t be reconfigured for other purposes, this could mean a significant loss. Yes, this would affect USB ASIC rigs as well. However, the loss of investment would be significantly less in comparison. Easier Setup Process One of the most difficult aspects of starting a successful mining operation is ... The hardware you purchase today might become obsolete within a year or two. Bitcoin mining equipment manufacturers are constantly looking to make efficient ASIC miner to meet consumer demand. Back in 2016 any equipment with 14 Th/s was considered among the best Bitcoin mining hardware, however, this is no more the case. Miners today are not settling for any BTC mining hardware that provides ... Are Bitmain’s Antminer E3 Ethash ASIC Miners Becoming Obsolete 24 Feb 2020. It seems that the life of the Antminer E3 ASIC miners from Bitmain is nearing its end with the Ethash miner apparently becoming useless for Ethereum Classic (ETC) mining and soon for Ethereum (ETH) as well, or at least we are getting such reports form users being unable to mine properly ETC these devices anymore. The ... However, with the way Bitcoin hashrate is rising, you never know whether this hardware becomes obsolete in a few months. If you plan to purchase this specific miner, there are certain things that you have to consider the rising mining difficulty. Yes, ASIC Bitcoin miners are much more powerful than ordinary GPUs, but you may as well read that ...

[index] [22105] [15603] [17904] [30176] [48228] [17581] [26606] [43301] [15392] [31757]

Litecoin Dogecoin Scrypt 1200 KH/s Mining Rig 3 x 7850

I spent a little more on the CPU and RAM above so I can use those parts in a gaming machine once this rig becomes obsolete for mining or for when I upgrade to scrypt ASIC miners. AMD Sempron 145 ... VoskCoin home of the latest cryptocurrency news, reviews, and tutorials -- Bitmain has a new Decred ASIC miner that will lose your money, AMD is refreshing a... Minerone using dragonmint 16t? Is the dragonmint 16t going to make the antminer s9 obsolete? Antminer s9 vs the dragon mint 16ths. MinerDigi Official Donation Addresses, support appreciated! BTC ... Bitcoin ASIC Miner Tests and FinFET 16nm Transistor Technology. 2048 - 8192 bit Encryption Development & Data Compression. Cryptography, Steganography. Crypt... Land ASIC Chip Bitcoin Mining Machine Work Video LAND TECHNOLOGY SHARE CO., LIMITED(Hong Kong China) BITCOIN DEVELOPMENT LTD(UK) All rights reserved.

#