8 Cloud Mining Anbieter fürs Bitcoin Mining zum Bitcoins ...

About Ethereum mining pitfalls, risks, and threats

Bitcoin miners are massively switching to Ethereum. According to 8btc estimates, the payback period for a Bitcoin miner is 600 days, while for the same metric on Ether it only takes 200 days. But this goodness won’t last forever. Read about what threatens the development of Ethereum below.
Hardware and Filling – Halfway to Success
Experienced folks advise taking the most productive video cards, for example, the latest models from Nvidia and AMD. When choosing, pay attention to the amount of video memory (ideally from 2 GB), memory speed (with DDR 5 memory), bus width (better with a 256-bit bus), and cooling (basically there’s no competition to Radeon devices). Take Radeon RX 570, this 169 USD card produces 24-30 Mh/s, which is superb.
The Illusion of Stability
The entire multi-million community of Ether lovers trembled in early August when the Ethereum Classic network was subjected to several 51% attacks at once. In addition, in the first half of 2020 alone, over 5 attacks were carried out on popular DeFi platforms, including Balancer ($500,000 stolen) and bZx (17,500 ETH were stolen in total). Moreover, cybercriminals do not always use technical vulnerabilities, sometimes good old social engineering works.
Reduction of Reward
Ethereum developers have proposed to reduce the block mining reward by 75%. ConsenSys Managing Director John Leelik published the EIP-2878 proposal aimed at reducing inflation and preserving purchasing power. If supported, the reward will drop to 0.5 ETH.
The transition of ETH to ETH 2.0 (PoS)
We already wrote about this in the article "Problems of Ethereum Mining", and you can also watch the interview by Peter McCormack with the project founder Vitalik Buterin.
While the opportunity is still there, we offer everyone to get the most out of it and mine profitably. For example, take a closer look at the new CoinFLy ETH Pool, that nowadays offers more rewards than others, at least by 10%.
Profit That is Not Profit
A hidden and obvious problem is choosing the pool based on its profitability. If you only have a few capacities, then it is better to choose a pool that uses the PPS+ model, if you’ve got a lot of them, then a powerful pool with PPLNS is better. And if you’ve got so many capacities that there’s even enough for others, then you can also go SOLO, buddy. More details - here.
submitted by applesEgo to ethereum [link] [comments]

Ethereum mining pitfalls, risks, and threats

Bitcoin miners are massively switching to Ethereum. According to 8btc estimates, the payback period for a Bitcoin miner is 600 days, while for the same metric on Ether it only takes 200 days. But this goodness won’t last forever. Read about what threatens the development of Ethereum below.
Hardware and Filling – Halfway to Success
Experienced folks advise taking the most productive video cards, for example, the latest models from Nvidia and AMD. When choosing, pay attention to the amount of video memory (ideally from 2 GB), memory speed (with DDR 5 memory), bus width (better with a 256-bit bus), and cooling (basically there’s no competition to Radeon devices). Take Radeon RX 570, this 169 USD card produces 24-30 Mh/s, which is superb.
The Illusion of Stability
The entire multi-million community of Ether lovers trembled in early August when the Ethereum Classic network was subjected to several 51% attacks at once. In addition, in the first half of 2020 alone, over 5 attacks were carried out on popular DeFi platforms, including Balancer ($500,000 stolen) and bZx (17,500 ETH were stolen in total). Moreover, cybercriminals do not always use technical vulnerabilities, sometimes good old social engineering works.
Reduction of Reward
Ethereum developers have proposed to reduce the block mining reward by 75%. ConsenSys Managing Director John Leelik published the EIP-2878 proposal aimed at reducing inflation and preserving purchasing power. If supported, the reward will drop to 0.5 ETH.
The transition of ETH to ETH 2.0 (PoS)
We already wrote about this in the article "Problems of Ethereum Mining", and you can also watch the interview by Peter McCormack with the project founder Vitalik Buterin.
While the opportunity is still there, we offer everyone to get the most out of it and mine profitably. For example, take a closer look at the new CoinFLy ETH Pool, that nowadays offers more rewards than others, at least by 10%.
Profit That is Not Profit
A hidden and obvious problem is choosing the pool based on its profitability. If you only have a few capacities, then it is better to choose a pool that uses the PPS+ model, if you’ve got a lot of them, then a powerful pool with PPLNS is better. And if you’ve got so many capacities that there’s even enough for others, then you can also go SOLO, buddy. More details - here.
submitted by applesEgo to gpumining [link] [comments]

Mining pitfalls, risks, and threats in Ethereum network

Bitcoin miners are massively switching to Ethereum. According to 8btc estimates, the payback period for a Bitcoin miner is 600 days, while for the same metric on Ether it only takes 200 days. But this goodness won’t last forever. Read about what threatens the development of Ethereum below.
Hardware and Filling – Halfway to Success
Experienced folks advise taking the most productive video cards, for example, the latest models from Nvidia and AMD. When choosing, pay attention to the amount of video memory (ideally from 2 GB), memory speed (with DDR 5 memory), bus width (better with a 256-bit bus), and cooling (basically there’s no competition to Radeon devices). Take Radeon RX 570, this 169 USD card produces 24-30 Mh/s, which is superb.
The Illusion of Stability
The entire multi-million community of Ether lovers trembled in early August when the Ethereum Classic network was subjected to several 51% attacks at once. In addition, in the first half of 2020 alone, over 5 attacks were carried out on popular DeFi platforms, including Balancer ($500,000 stolen) and bZx (17,500 ETH were stolen in total). Moreover, cybercriminals do not always use technical vulnerabilities, sometimes good old social engineering works.
Reduction of Reward
Ethereum developers have proposed to reduce the block mining reward by 75%. ConsenSys Managing Director John Leelik published the EIP-2878 proposal aimed at reducing inflation and preserving purchasing power. If supported, the reward will drop to 0.5 ETH.
The transition of ETH to ETH 2.0 (PoS)
We already wrote about this in the article "Problems of Ethereum Mining", and you can also watch the interview by Peter McCormack with the project founder Vitalik Buterin.
While the opportunity is still there, we offer everyone to get the most out of it and mine profitably. For example, take a closer look at the new CoinFLy ETH Pool, that nowadays offers more rewards than others, at least by 10%.
Profit That is Not Profit
A hidden and obvious problem is choosing the pool based on its profitability. If you only have a few capacities, then it is better to choose a pool that uses the PPS+ model, if you’ve got a lot of them, then a powerful pool with PPLNS is better. And if you’ve got so many capacities that there’s even enough for others, then you can also go SOLO, buddy. More details - here.
submitted by applesEgo to CryptoCurrencies [link] [comments]

About problems of Ethereum miners

Bitcoin miners are massively switching to Ethereum. According to 8btc estimates, the payback period for a Bitcoin miner is 600 days, while for the same metric on Ether it only takes 200 days. But this goodness won’t last forever. Read about what threatens the development of Ethereum below.
Hardware and Filling – Halfway to Success
Experienced folks advise taking the most productive video cards, for example, the latest models from Nvidia and AMD. When choosing, pay attention to the amount of video memory (ideally from 2 GB), memory speed (with DDR 5 memory), bus width (better with a 256-bit bus), and cooling (basically there’s no competition to Radeon devices). Take Radeon RX 570, this 169 USD card produces 24-30 Mh/s, which is superb.
The Illusion of Stability
The entire multi-million community of Ether lovers trembled in early August when the Ethereum Classic network was subjected to several 51% attacks at once. In addition, in the first half of 2020 alone, over 5 attacks were carried out on popular DeFi platforms, including Balancer ($500,000 stolen) and bZx (17,500 ETH were stolen in total). Moreover, cybercriminals do not always use technical vulnerabilities, sometimes good old social engineering works.
Reduction of Reward
Ethereum developers have proposed to reduce the block mining reward by 75%. ConsenSys Managing Director John Leelik published the EIP-2878 proposal aimed at reducing inflation and preserving purchasing power. If supported, the reward will drop to 0.5 ETH.
The transition of ETH to ETH 2.0 (PoS)
We already wrote about this in the article "Problems of Ethereum Mining", and you can also watch the interview by Peter McCormack with the project founder Vitalik Buterin.
While the opportunity is still there, we offer everyone to get the most out of it and mine profitably. For example, take a closer look at the new CoinFLy ETH Pool, that nowadays offers more rewards than others, at least by 10%.
Profit That is Not Profit
A hidden and obvious problem is choosing the pool based on its profitability. If you only have a few capacities, then it is better to choose a pool that uses the PPS+ model, if you’ve got a lot of them, then a powerful pool with PPLNS is better. And if you’ve got so many capacities that there’s even enough for others, then you can also go SOLO, buddy. More details - here.
submitted by applesEgo to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Ethereum mining pitfalls, risks, and threats

Bitcoin miners are massively switching to Ethereum. According to 8btc estimates, the payback period for a Bitcoin miner is 600 days, while for the same metric on Ether it only takes 200 days. But this goodness won’t last forever. Read about what threatens the development of Ethereum below.
Hardware and Filling – Halfway to Success
Experienced folks advise taking the most productive video cards, for example, the latest models from Nvidia and AMD. When choosing, pay attention to the amount of video memory (ideally from 2 GB), memory speed (with DDR 5 memory), bus width (better with a 256-bit bus), and cooling (basically there’s no competition to Radeon devices). Take Radeon RX 570, this 169 USD card produces 24-30 Mh/s, which is superb.
The Illusion of Stability
The entire multi-million community of Ether lovers trembled in early August when the Ethereum Classic network was subjected to several 51% attacks at once. In addition, in the first half of 2020 alone, over 5 attacks were carried out on popular DeFi platforms, including Balancer ($500,000 stolen) and bZx (17,500 ETH were stolen in total). Moreover, cybercriminals do not always use technical vulnerabilities, sometimes good old social engineering works.
Reduction of Reward
Ethereum developers have proposed to reduce the block mining reward by 75%. ConsenSys Managing Director John Leelik published the EIP-2878 proposal aimed at reducing inflation and preserving purchasing power. If supported, the reward will drop to 0.5 ETH.
The transition of ETH to ETH 2.0 (PoS)
We already wrote about this in the article "Problems of Ethereum Mining", and you can also watch the interview by Peter McCormack with the project founder Vitalik Buterin.
While the opportunity is still there, we offer everyone to get the most out of it and mine profitably. For example, take a closer look at the new CoinFLy ETH Pool, that nowadays offers more rewards than others, at least by 10%.
Profit That is Not Profit
A hidden and obvious problem is choosing the pool based on its profitability. If you only have a few capacities, then it is better to choose a pool that uses the PPS+ model, if you’ve got a lot of them, then a powerful pool with PPLNS is better. And if you’ve got so many capacities that there’s even enough for others, then you can also go SOLO, buddy. More details - here.
submitted by applesEgo to Metaverse_Blockchain [link] [comments]

With the pretty awesome rise of almost all crypto currencies, it's time to restart our machines and mine the most profitable coin today 30.01.2020!!!

So let's talk about the GPUs to start with, the ranking has radically changed and even those that were running at a loss have become profitable again The top 10 chart:
1.NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 4.60 Mh/s 220W $1.35 $0.55 Zcoin(XZC) MTP Algo
2.NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 4.00 Mh/s 190W $1.17 $0.48 Zcoin(XZC) MTP
3.AMD Radeon VII 78.00 Mh/s 230W $1.22 $0.39 EthereumClassic(ETC) Ethash Algo
4.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti 3.60 Mh/s 190W $1.05 $0.37 Zcoin(XZC) MTP
5.AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 51.50 Mh/s 140W $0.81 $0.30 EthereumClassic(ETC) Ethash
6.NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 2.60 Mh/s 130W $0.76 $0.29 Zcoin(XZC)MTP
7.NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 2.80 Mh/s 150W $0.82 $0.28 Zcoin(XZC) MTP
8.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 2.80 Mh/s 150W $0.82 $0.28 Zcoin(XZC) MTP
9.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 Ti 2.50 Mh/s 130W $0.73 $0.26 Zcoin(XZC) MTP
10.NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 2.00 Mh/s 100W $0.59 $0.22 Zcoin(XZC)
Now let's go to the asic Top 10:
  1. Innosilicon A10 ETHMaster 500.00 Mh/s 750W Ethash $5.13 EthereumClassic(ETC) Ethash
  2. Bitmain Antminer Z11 135.00 kh/s 1418W Equihash $3.45 Pirate(ARRR)
  3. BlackMiner F1+ 22.00 Gh/s 860W Eaglesong $3.23 Nervos(CKB) FPGAminer
4.Bitmain Antminer B7 96.00 kh/s 528W Tensority $1.87
5.Bitmain Antminer S17+ 73.00 Th/s 2920W SHA-256 $1.67 BitcoinSV(BSV)
6.StrongU STU-U6 420.00 Gh/s 2100W X11 $1.52 Dash(DASH)
  1. Bitmain Antminer S17 Pro 56 Th/s 2212W SHA-256 $1.46 BitcoinSV(BSV)
  2. Bitmain Antminer S17 59.00 Th/s 2385W SHA-256 $1.34 BitcoinSV(BSV)
  3. Innosilicon A9 ZMaster 50.00 kh/s 620W Equihash $1.08 Pirate(ARRR)
  4. FusionSilicon X7 262.00 Gh/s 1300W X11 $1.03 Dash(DASH)
Dont forget you can find around new Firmware for example for Z9/Z11 Efudd Firmware,and Hive OS firmwares which can Overclock S9/S15/S17 or Underclock (if your electriciy fee are too expensive), for example my S17 Pro I switched to new firmware (Hive OS) to 36Th/s with 900 Watts power gives me a 2.90 usd/day profit without electricity of course, for Z11 Overclocking without changing PSU from 135 to 150-160Ko/sol.
I calculated everything on the basis of 0.15 cens Kw / h.
Brand New Miner coming out:
ASICminer Zeon Turbo 400,000 Sol/s Equihash
Most Profitable Miner in the World. ASICminer Daily Revenue: $27 $16 (less 0.15 Kw/h fee) ASICminer Power Consumption: 2500W
asicminer dot co/shop (Factory)
submitted by pushingworld77 to BitcoinMining [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]

Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review


Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review

Bitmain is regarded as one of the most influential companies in the ASIC mining industry. It is estimated that they have manufactured approximately 53% of all mining equipment.Without including their mining profits, that’s around $140 million dollars in sales. These figures are staggering, but Bitmain’s monopoly of the Bitcoin ASIC market may come to an end, following the release of PowerAsic’s asicpower AP9-SHA256.

About the asicpower AP9-SHA256

Designed with brand new technology and boasting 94 TH/s per miner, the AP(-SHA256 is the most powerful and efficient Bitcoin miner to date.PowerAsic claims they spent $12 million dollars on research, development, and prototypes.PowerAsic also noted that their miners take advantage of ASICBOOST, an exploit of Bitcoin’s algorithm which improves mining efficiency by 20%.An unusual approach separate Powerasic’s miner to the other manufactures is the implementation of copper heat-sink claimed to have a superior thermal conductivity 69% better than aluminium. Don’t take their words for it but confirm the facts are correct on widely well known and published science documents as this one.The first batch of miners were announced and made available for order in August of 2019, with start scheduled for shipment in September, 2019.
Powerasic claims that the machines are around 40 percent more productive than the most proficient ASIC on the market, Bitmain’s Antminer S17.According to PowerAsic, they started a mining project with the aim to bring much needed competition to the market…We want to ‘make SHA256 great again.Sitting at the hefty price of $2,795.00, the powerasic AP9-SHA256 is far from affordable for the average person. Fortunately, due to the newly born rivalry between Bitmain and Powerasic, the price will probably lower with time and competition.The power supply for this unit is included and integrated in the top-box also including the controler card as a one unit. You will also get standard power cable, network cable, manual and software in the packet. In comparison to the price of the Antminer S17 , the Powerasic AP9-Sha256 is a better value.

Power Supply

The integrated PSU 3300W has a inputVoltage 220V 50Hz 30A. There are 2 fan 40mm., 1 fan 60mm to keep it cool and the power cable 3 legs following CEE 7 standard.Professional mining hardware runs optimally at 220-240V, hence why mining farms step down their own electricity supply to 220-240V. Note that 220V current is only found outside of the US – American outlets are 110V by default. Unless you want to hire an electrician, this could cause some people trouble adapt to the eficient and recomended 220V power needed, still 110V will get the job done, but they are not ideal for optimum mining performance.

Power Consumption

Thanks to the powerasic AP9-HA256’s new 7nm generation of ASIC chips, the AP9-SHA256 has become the most electrically-efficient miner on the market.Consuming merely 30.J/TB, or 2860W from the wall, the 16T is 30% more electrically-efficient than the Antminer S17.

Profitability

Powerasic ’s new ASIC technology is impressive. When compared to its closest competitor, the Antminer S17, the powerasic AP9-HA256 is the clear winner. It hashes at 94 TH/s, as opposed to the S17’s 56 TH/s. Moreover, the the AP9-HA256 consumes 30J/GH, whereas the S17 consumes 39-45J/TB.The difference in power consumption is miniscule, but when it comes to large-scale mining, the the AP9-HA256’s edge will drastically increase the profitability of a mining operation. This ASIC is profitable not only for mining on a large scale, but for the individual miner as well.Take a look at the projected mining profitability of a single miner:Note that is appears profitable even with high electricity costs ($0.1 per KW/h). With $0.05 / KW/h it’s even more profitable:📷Each powerasic AP9-HA256 will generate about $6,009 per year (calculated with 1 BTC=$10,141.5). Mining profitability may vary. You can usethis free profitability calculator to determine your projected earnings.

Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?

There is been a lot of talk on Twitter that powerasic AP9-HA256 is a scam. It appears it is not, as many users are already claiming to have received their miners.Slush, the creator ot Slush Mining Pool and the TREZOR hardware wallet, claims on Twitter that he has seen units and knows people who have had their miners delivered:

Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?

When the first batch of Bitmain’s Antminer S17 ASICs reached the eager hands of miners, they were all the rage. The S17 was renowned as the most efficient ASIC miner on the market. Many used the S17 as the industry’s golden standard.Up until the launch of the powerasic AP9-HA256, it was the golden standard.But, now?Things have changed.Not only is the powerasic AP9-HA256 more powerful than its predecessor from Bitmain, but also more efficient, and therefore, more profitable.Ever since the announcement of the new ASIC, there was widespread speculation of its legitimacy – and rightly so.The Bitcoin community has been plagued with small, phony companies manipulating images of preexisting antminers as a ploy to hype up their fake products. Nevertheless, powerasic AP9-HA256 is taking things seriously, and their first batch of miners have lived up to expectations.The fact of the matter is, Bitmain’s most powerful and efficient antminer has been dethroned by the new reigning king of ASICs: The powerasic AP9-HA256.

Conclusion

Bitmain has dominated the ASIC market since its inception in 2013.There are a few other companies producing ASICs. However, before the creation of PowerAsics AP9-SHA256., Bitmain was the only company with a proven track record that sold efficient miners directly to the public.Powerasic AP9-HA256 has the potential to bring Bitmain’s monopoly to an end. Powerasic AP9-HA256 has a bright future ahead of them. Now that Bitmain has noteworthy competition, it will be interesting to see how it affects the market. The powerasic AP9-HA256 is the best option (for now) for anyone getting started with mining. Powerasic’s innovation should force other ASIC producers to innovate and force other companies to release new miners with better efficiency. So whether you’re buying a miner now or soon, you’re likely to benefit from the development of this new miner. For more, Visit Us: https://asicpower.net/product.php
submitted by farwa786 to u/farwa786 [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — June 2018

Note: You can read this on GitHub, Medium or old Reddit to see the 207 links.

Development

The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response.
dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage.
Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun.
Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal.
Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue.
dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues.
Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction).
Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs.
decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page.
decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here.
Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s.
F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1.
Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).

ASICs

Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target.
Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.comtranslated, also on asicminervalue)
dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.

Integrations

bepool.org is a new mining pool spotted on dcred.eu.
Exchange integrations:
Two OTC trading desks are now shown on decred.org exchanges page.
BitPro payment gateway added Decred and posted on Reddit. Notably, it is fully functional without javascript or cookies and does not ask for name or email, among other features.
Guarda Wallet integrated Decred. Currently only in their web wallet, but more may come in future. Notable feature is "DCR purchase with a bank card". See more details in their post or ask their representative on Reddit. Important: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.

Adoption

Merchants:
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project).
The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below.
Arbitrade is now mining Decred.

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

stakey.club: a new website by @mm:
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
@morphymore translated Placeholder's Decred Investment Thesis and Richard Red's write-up on Politeia to Chinese, while @DZ translated Decred Roadmap 2018 to Italian and Russian, and A New Kind of DEX to Italian and Russian.
Second iteration of Chinese ratings released. Compared to the first issue, Decred dropped from 26 to 29 while Bitcoin fell from 13 to 17. We (the authors) restrain ourselves commenting on this one.
Videos:
Audio:
Featured articles:
Articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository.
An update on our communication systems:
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS.
A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people.
A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred.
"Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance.
"The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here.
Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms.
Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.

Markets

DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market.
In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.

Relevant External

Obelisk announced Launchpad service. The idea is to work with coin developers to design a custom, ASIC-friendly PoW algorithm together with a first batch of ASICs and distribute them among the community.
Equihash-based ZenCash was hit by a double spend attack that led to a loss of $450,000 by the exchange which was targeted.
Almost one year after collecting funds, Tezos announced a surprise identification procedure to claim tokens (non-javascript version).
A hacker broke into Syscoin's GitHub account and implanted malware stealing passwords and private keys into Windows binaries. This is a painful reminder for everybody to verify binaries after download.
Circle announced new asset listing framework for Poloniex. Relevant to recent discussions of exchange listing bribery:
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss.
Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance".
Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case.
Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)

About This Issue

This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue.
As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — May 2018

Note: New Reddit look may not highlight links. See old look here. A copy is hosted on GitHub for better reading experience. Check it out, contains photo of the month! Also on Medium

Development

dcrd: Significant optimization in signature hash calculation, bloom filters support was removed, 2x faster startup thanks to in-memory full block index, multipeer work advancing, stronger protection against majority hashpower attacks. Additionally, code refactoring and cleanup, code and test infrastructure improvements.
In dcrd and dcrwallet developers have been experimenting with new modular dependency and versioning schemes using vgo. @orthomind is seeking feedback for his work on reproducible builds.
Decrediton: 1.2.1 bugfix release, work on SPV has started, chart additions are in progress. Further simplification of the staking process is in the pipeline (slack).
Politeia: new command line tool to interact with Politeia API, general development is ongoing. Help with testing will soon be welcome: this issue sets out a test plan, join #politeia to follow progress and participate in testing.
dcrdata: work ongoing on improved design, adding more charts and improving Insight API support.
Android: design work advancing.
Decred's own DNS seeder (dcrseeder) was released. It is written in Go and it properly supports service bit filtering, which will allow SPV nodes to find full nodes that support compact filters.
Ticket splitting service by @matheusd entered beta and demonstrated an 11-way split on mainnet. Help with testing is much appreciated, please join #ticket_splitting to participate in splits, but check this doc to learn about the risks. Reddit discussion here.
Trezor support is expected to land in their next firmware update.
Decred is now supported by Riemann, a toolbox from James Prestwich to construct transactions for many UTXO-based chains from human-readable strings.
Atomic swap with Ethereum on testnet was demonstrated at Blockspot Conference LATAM.
Two new faces were added to contributors page.
Dev activity stats for May: 238 active PRs, 195 master commits, 32,831 added and 22,280 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: rapid growth from ~4,000 TH/s at the beginning of the month to ~15,000 at the end with new all time high of 17,949. Interesting dynamic in hashrate distribution across mining pools: coinmine.pl share went down from 55% to 25% while F2Pool up from 2% to 44%. [Note: as of June 6, the hashrate continues to rise and has already passed 22,000 TH/s]
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 91.3 DCR (+0.8), stake participation is 46.9% (+0.8%) with 3.68 million DCR locked (+0.15). Min price was 85.56. On May 11 ticket price surged to 96.99, staying elevated for longer than usual after such a pump. Locked DCR peaked at 47.17%. jet_user on reddit suggested that the DCR for these tickets likely came from a miner with significant hashrate.
Nodes: there are 226 public listening and 405 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 45% on v1.2.0 (up from 24% last month), 39% on v1.1.2, 15% on v1.1.0 and 1% running outdaded versions.

ASICs

Obelisk team posted an update. Current hashrate estimate of DCR1 is 1200 GH/s at 500 W and may still change. The chips came back at 40% the speed of the simulated results, it is still unknown why. Batch 1 units may get delayed 1-2 weeks past June 30. See discussions on decred and on siacoin.
@SiaBillionaire estimated that 7940 DCR1 units were sold in Batches 1-5, while Lynmar13 shared his projections of DCR1 profitability (reddit).
A new Chinese miner for pre-order was noticed by our Telegram group. Woodpecker WB2 specs 1.5 TH/s at 1200 W, costs 15,000 CNY (~2,340 USD) and the initial 150 units are expected to ship on Aug 15. (pow8.comtranslated)
Another new miner is iBelink DSM6T: 6 TH/s at 2100 W costing $6,300 (ibelink.co). Shipping starts from June 5. Some concerns and links were posted in these two threads.

Integrations

A new mining pool is available now: altpool.net. It uses PPLNS model and takes 1% fee.
Another infrastructure addition is tokensmart.io, a newly audited stake pool with 0.8% fee. There are a total of 14 stake pools now.
Exchange integrations:
OpenBazaar released an update that allows one to trade cryptocurrencies, including DCR.
@i2Rav from i2trading is now offering two sided OTC market liquidity on DCUSD in #trading channel.
Paytomat, payments solution for point of sale and e-commerce, integrated Decred. (missed in April issue)
CoinPayments, a payment processor supporting Decred, developed an integration with @Shopify that allows connected merchants to accept cryptocurrencies in exchange for goods.

Adoption

New merchants:
An update from VotoLegal:
michae2xl: Voto Legal: CEO Thiago Rondon of Appcívico, has already been contacted by 800 politicians and negotiations have started with four pre-candidates for the presidency (slack, source tweet)
Blockfolio rolled out Signal Beta with Decred in the list. Users who own or watch a coin will automatically receive updates pushed by project teams. Nice to see this Journal made it to the screenshot!
Placeholder Ventures announced that Decred is their first public investment. Their Investment Thesis is a clear and well researched overview of Decred. Among other great points it noted the less obvious benefit of not doing an ICO:
By choosing not to pre-sell coins to speculators, the financial rewards from Decred’s growth most favor those who work for the network.
Alex Evans, a cryptoeconomics researcher who recently joined Placeholder, posted his 13-page Decred Network Analysis.

Marketing

@Dustorf published March–April survey results (pdf). It analyzes 166 responses and has lots of interesting data. Just an example:
"I own DECRED because I saw a YouTube video with DECRED Jesus and after seeing it I was sold."
May targeted advertising report released. Reach @timhebel for full version.
PiedPiperCoin hired our advisors.
More creative promos by @jackliv3r: Contributing, Stake Now, The Splitting, Forbidden Exchange, Atomic Swaps.
Reminder: Stakey has his own Twitter account where he tweets about his antics and pours scorn on the holders of expired tickets.
"Autonomy" coin sculpture is available at sigmasixdesign.com.

Events

BitConf in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Jake Yocom-Piatt presented "Decentralized Central Banking". Note the mini stakey on one of the photos. (articletranslated, photos: 1 2 album)
Wicked Crypto Meetup in Warsaw, Poland. (video, photos: 1 2)
Decred Polska Meetup in Katowice, Poland. First known Decred Cake. (photos: 1 2)
Austin Hispanic Hackers Meetup in Austin, USA.
Consensus 2018 in New York, USA. See videos in the Media section. Select photos: booth, escort, crew, moon boots, giant stakey. Many other photos and mentions were posted on Twitter. One tweet summarized Decred pretty well:
One project that stands out at #Consensus2018 is @decredproject. Not annoying. Real tech. Humble team. #BUIDL is strong with them. (@PallerJohn)
Token Summit in New York, USA. @cburniske and @jmonegro from Placeholder talked "Governance and Cryptoeconomics" and spoke highly of Decred. (twitter coverage: 1 2, video, video (from 32 min))
Campus Party in Bahia, Brazil. João Ferreira aka @girino and Gabriel @Rhama were introducing Decred, talking about governance and teaching to perform atomic swaps. (photos)
Decred was introduced to the delegates from Shanghai's Caohejing Hi-Tech Park, organized by @ybfventures.
Second Decred meetup in Hangzhou, China. (photos)
Madison Blockchain in Madison, USA. "Lots of in-depth questions. The Q&A lasted longer than the presentation!". (photo)
Blockspot Conference Latam in Sao Paulo, Brazil. (photos: 1, 2)
Upcoming events:
There is a community initiative by @vj to organize information related to events in a repository. Jump in #event_planning channel to contribute.

Media

Decred scored B (top 3) in Weiss Ratings and A- (top 8) in Darpal Rating.
Chinese institute is developing another rating system for blockchains. First round included Decred (translated). Upon release Decred ranked 26. For context, Bitcoin ranked 13.
Articles:
Audios:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter 39,118 (+742), Reddit 8,167 (+277), Slack 5,658 (+160). Difference is between May 5 and May 31.
Reddit highlights: transparent up/down voting on Politeia, combining LN and atomic swaps, minimum viable superorganism, the controversial debate on Decred contractor model (people wondered about true motives behind the thread), tx size and fees discussion, hard moderation case, impact of ASICs on price, another "Why Decred?" thread with another excellent pitch by solar, fee analysis showing how ticket price algorithm change was controversial with ~100x cut in miner profits, impact of ticket splitting on ticket price, recommendations on promoting Decred, security against double spends and custom voting policies.
@R3VoLuT1OneR posted a preview of a proposal from his company for Decred to offer scholarships for students.
dcrtrader gained a couple of new moderators, weekly automatic threads were reconfigured to monthly and empty threads were removed. Currently most trading talk happens on #trading and some leaks to decred. A separate trading sub offers some advantages: unlimited trading talk, broad range of allowed topics, free speech and transparent moderation, in addition to standard reddit threaded discussion, permanent history and search.
Forum: potential social attacks on Decred.
Slack: the #governance channel created last month has seen many intelligent conversations on topics including: finite attention of decision makers, why stakeholders can make good decisions (opposed to a common narrative than only developers are capable of making good decisions), proposal funding and contractor pre-qualification, Cardano and Dash treasuries, quadratic voting, equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity, and much more.
One particularly important issue being discussed is the growing number of posts arguing that on-chain governance and coin voting is bad. Just a few examples from Twitter: Decred is solving an imagined problem (decent response by @jm_buirski), we convince ourselves that we need governance and ticket price algo vote was not controversial, on-chain governance hurts node operators and it is too early for it, it robs node operators of their role, crypto risks being captured by the wealthy, it is a huge threat to the whole public blockchain space, coin holders should not own the blockchain.
Some responses were posted here and here on Twitter, as well as this article by Noah Pierau.

Markets

The month of May has seen Decred earn some much deserved attention in the markets. DCR started the month around 0.009 BTC and finished around 0.0125 with interim high of 0.0165 on Bittrex. In USD terms it started around $81 and finished around $92, temporarily rising to $118. During a period in which most altcoins suffered, Decred has performed well; rising from rank #45 to #30 on Coinmarketcap.
The addition of a much awaited KRW pair on Upbit saw the price briefly double on some exchanges. This pair opens up direct DCR to fiat trading in one of the largest cryptocurrency markets in the world.
An update from @i2Rav:
We have begun trading DCR in large volume daily. The interest around DCR has really started to grow in terms of OTC quote requests. More and more customers are asking about trading it.
Like in previous month, Decred scores high by "% down from ATH" indicator being #2 on onchainfx as of June 6.

Relevant External

David Vorick (@taek) published lots of insights into the world of ASIC manufacturing (reddit). Bitmain replied.
Bitmain released an ASIC for Equihash (archived), an algorithm thought to be somewhat ASIC-resistant 2 years ago.
Three pure PoW coins were attacked this month, one attempting to be ASIC resistant. This shows the importance of Decred's PoS layer that exerts control over miners and allows Decred to welcome ASIC miners for more PoW security without sacrificing sovereignty to them.
Upbit was raided over suspected fraud and put under investigation. Following news reported no illicit activity was found and suggested and raid was premature and damaged trust in local exchanges.
Circle, the new owner of Poloniex, announced a USD-backed stablecoin and Bitmain partnership. The plan is to make USDC available as a primary market on Poloniex. More details in the FAQ.
Poloniex announced lower trading fees.
Bittrex plans to offer USD trading pairs.
@sumiflow made good progress on correcting Decred market cap on several sites:
speaking of market cap, I got it corrected on coingecko, cryptocompare, and worldcoinindex onchainfx, livecoinwatch, and cryptoindex.co said they would update it about a month ago but haven't yet I messaged coinlib.io today but haven't got a response yet coinmarketcap refused to correct it until they can verify certain funds have moved from dev wallets which is most likely forever unknowable (slack)

About This Issue

Some source links point to Slack messages. Although Slack hides history older than ~5 days, you can read individual messages if you paste the message link into chat with yourself. Digging the full conversation is hard but possible. The history of all channels bridged to Matrix is saved in Matrix. Therefore it is possible to dig history in Matrix if you know the timestamp of the first message. Slack links encode the timestamp: https://decred.slack.com/archives/C5H9Z63AA/p1525528370000062 => 1525528370 => 2018-05-05 13:52:50.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Your feedback is precious. You can post on GitHub, comment on Reddit or message us in #writers_room channel.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Richard-Red, snr01 and solar.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin consumes more energy than [insert country here]", "Bitcoin is DESTROYING the planet", "Bitcoin could cost us our green future" A deeper look into bullshit.

As you might have noticed there has been an explosion of mainstream media article about Bitcoin's energy consumption. I won't link these crap but here are the titles:
So what is the info? Where does it come from? How did they come up with it? Is it true?
What is the info
Wrapped in sensationalism, the info is the following:
energy consumption of the bitcoin network, which is responsible for verifying transactions made with the cryptocurrency, is 30.14TWh a year
Where does it come from
Following direct links, or going through endless source circle of newspaper quoting one another, the source for absolutely all of these news article is the following website:
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
The about section contains the following:
Digiconomist is a platform that provides in-depth analysis, opinions and discussions with regard to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. The goal of Digiconomist is to cover any relevant financial, economic or regulatory cryptocurrency-related topic.
Additionally a quick look at the website shows a few things: 1. The website only talks about ETH and BTC 2. Outside of the blog posts it almost only talks about energy consumption (there is an ETH obituaries) 3. Blog posts started in march 2014 4. The domain was registered the 2014-07-03 5. No address, no country, no name, no foundation, no agency... Who are they?
Disregarding the fact that it comes from a no name website the, info is right there with a nice graph and even a methodology explained with a pretty infochart. It almost looks to good for a blog about cryptos. How did the Bloomberg, ars technica and the like found this website? I do not know, but when they did a ready to use report for newspaper was there waiting for them. Also, the graph as an url embedded at the bottom: "bitcoinenergyconsumption.com" which interestingly enough is a redirect for Digiconomist.
Also the bottom of the page on consumption has a list of news articles referring to this website for their sensationalist claims.
How did they come up with it
So as I said the methodology is there, and the result of it is there too:
Bitcoin's current estimated annual electricity consumption* (TWh) 32.53
So let's dive into the methodology on a step by step process, first of all, a further detailed methodology is shown here
  1. First, calculate the "Annualized global mining revenues (USD)", the website says: $13,487,831,695 As of this writing, on fork.lol, the reward for BTC is around r = 240 000 USD per block. r * 6 * 24 * 365 = 12 614 400 000. This is the same order of magnitude, but not good enough. Including the BCH reward as well (17 639 as we speak) gives : C = 13 541 505 840 USD. Seems about right.
  2. Calculate the mining operating cost "Annualized estimated global mining costs" : $1,626,480,051 This is easy, it is simply 60% of the previous number C * 0.6 = 8 124 903 504 USD ??? Ok this is weird, their number is not even 60%, it is more like 12%. So where is that number coming from?? Turns out this 60% assumption is not used at all in the calculation...
  3. Disregard the previous step
  4. Calculate the current total hashrate on the network: 14.12 ExaHashes/s at the time of these lines
  5. Assume the following:
Since the marginal product of mining is equal to the number of Bitcoins received per unit of mining effort, it would thus be expected that miners will either add more hashrate if the resulting revenue exceeds associated electricity costs, or reduce the hashrate once electricity costs start exceeding the revenue per hash. This also means that it is expected that the total network of Bitcoin miners is always mining at the calculate-able break-even efficiency. The break-even efficiency for Bitcoin mining can simply be calculated as:
W per GH/s=(price∙BTC/day)/(price per kWh ∙ 24hrday)
In layman terms, this means that they assume that the number of miners is always the exact amount for break even. This is a fair assumption. The formula that follows it make no sense without the context it came with in that working paper. A quick look at this document shows concerning mathematical mistakes... I have tried for far too long, I cannot reproduce any of their numbers...
So is it true? No
These numbers are not reproducible, they make no sense and calculated using a dubious paper by some professor of "social research". I assume he is also the owner of the website because his name appears way too often in there...The university where he studies has a nice wikipedia page:
The New School is a private non-profit research university centered in Manhattan, New York City, USA, located mostly in Greenwich Village. It was founded in 1919 as an institution dedicated to academic freedom and intellectual inquiry, serving as a home for progressive thinkers.
The real estimation
This is actually pretty straight forward. The maximum ever reached in hash rate was 16.5 exahashes/s according to fork.lol.
This is equivalent to 1.18 million S9 ant miner at 14 TH/s. Assuming everyone suck and they all have old hardware with crappy PSU. Let's say each S9 consumes 2000W. This is a 17520000 Wh per year per miner, which yields 20.67 TWh.
So peak production with very negatives assumptions yields a number 40% lower...
General critic
Deriving consumption from the mining revenue is purely ludicrous.
No including the fees in the mining revenue calculation is also ludicrous.
If your numbers are not reproducible, they are worthless.
submitted by Azeroth7 to btc [link] [comments]

Has the Bitcoin Hash Rate Peaked? Comparisons with Oil Show Interesting Findings

Has the Bitcoin Hash Rate Peaked? Comparisons with Oil Show Interesting Findings

https://preview.redd.it/85lpl2md4e221.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d3bab69f0570a96f55d790d25f1b1ab08c0a49b
https://cryptoiq.co/the-bitcoin-mining-hash-rate-has-similarities-to-peak-oil/
The Bitcoin mining hash rate had been exponentially increasing on average since the genesis block in 2009, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, to EH/s, and it reached an all-time record high of 62 EH/s on 26 August 2018. Since this peak was reached, the Bitcoin mining hash rate gradually plateaued and has now decreased. The chart of Bitcoin mining hash rate actually looks quite similar to a peak oil chart except on a much faster time-scale, as can be seen in the comparison between Bitcoin’s hash rate over the course of 2 years from Blockchain.com and North Sea oil production from an article in The Oil Drum: Europe by Euan Mearns. As explained below, the dynamics between peak oil and peak Bitcoin mining are similar, with the key difference that Bitcoin mining is decentralized and oil is not.

https://preview.redd.it/op5ept1g4e221.png?width=512&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b3b35eb631f31a64ed7beb01f283832bd231e4c

https://preview.redd.it/nfyhlf4h4e221.png?width=678&format=png&auto=webp&s=46a0ca7e11f274c5678f6421b1eebb788eab5197
Geologist M. King Hubbert is the founder of the peak oil theory, which states that there is a point when the maximum extraction rate of petroleum is reached, after which a terminal decline in production ensues. The peak rate of extraction of Bitcoin of course occurred during the period after the genesis block and before the first block halving, when the block reward was at its maximum of 50 Bitcoins. However, this is not the peak rate of mining profitability, since Bitcoin increased in price by orders of magnitude through the year 2017. The peak rate of Bitcoin mining profits undoubtedly was simultaneous with Bitcoin’s all-time record high of USD 20,000 in December 2017.
The reason the peak hash rate did not coincide with the peak rate of Bitcoin mining profits is because the rally happened so quickly that mining operations were not able to add rigs fast enough, so there was a lag effect. Even for mining operations with large amounts of capital it can take months to obtain the amount of mining equipment that they want, and for other mining operations it took even longer because they had to obtain investors, buy land, build infrastructure, and only then could they install the rigs and begin hashing.
The Bitcoin mining hash rate chart implicitly indicates that 30 EH/s of Bitcoin mining equipment has been taken offline due to lack of profitability, which represents tens of billions of USD of wasted rigs. This suggests that Bitcoin miners were caught by surprise by the decline in Bitcoin’s price from USD 20,000 to less than USD 4,000 as of 4 December 2018.
Coming back to the peak oil comparison, the current Bitcoin mining scene is like a rapid version of peak oil, combined with lack of coordination. Oil mining is a centralized and coordinated activity, where the oil is prospected, land is leased out and then an appropriate number of wells are drilled. With oil mining, companies cannot drill as many wells as they want, or drill wells on someone else’s lease, since this is all closely controlled by contractual agreements. Bitcoin mining is decentralized, and no one has a lease or contract to only mine with a certain amount of hash rate. Anyone in the world can run as much Bitcoin mining rigs as they can afford. The effect is that people all around the world are sticking their straws into the Bitcoin mining network all at the same time, and they sucked it dry. Essentially, so many people started up new mining operations at once without coordination, that the Bitcoin mining hash rate went way past its equilibrium, which hurt everyone involved. This is akin to if oil drilling was a decentralized process, and anyone who wanted to drill for oil could drill in the same field. The oil field would be sucked dry really quick, and then most of the drills would be shut down due to lack of profits.
There is hope for Bitcoin miners however. The price of Bitcoin simply has to rally, and all of the disenfranchised miners could restart their rigs, and then it would be back to the races and new rigs could begin being added. However, due to the decentralization of Bitcoin mining, the network hash rate will likely periodically rise past its equilibrium point, leading to catastrophic conditions for miners like we are experiencing today at points in the future. The only thing that could prevent the scenario we are experiencing today is a Bitcoin rally that lasts forever, which is obviously not possible.
James McAvity tweeted that Bitcoin mining is still profitable in the current environment, and does some simple linear calculations to prove this point. He also argues that miners are forced to keep mining due to business agreements, choose to HODL in expectation of a rally, and continue mining in expectation of a downward difficulty adjustment as other miners go offline.
https://twitter.com/jamesmcavity/status/1069669073552736256
Some of what McAvity says is true, but the reality is that Bitcoin mining is a highly non-linear system, and calculating the support level for mining is somewhat pointless, since it is different for every miner. Bitcoin mining profitability depends on Bitcoin’s price, the Bitcoin network hash rate which is directly correlated to mining difficulty, and the technological efficiency of Bitcoin mining rigs. These 3 factors are related in a non-linear and ever-changing way.
Instead of trudging away at trying to develop a set of equations that determine mining hash rate behavior, one could simply look at the Bitcoin mining hash rate chart at the beginning of this article to understand what is going on. Bitcoin mining profitability is different for each individual miner, and the hash rate has trended downwards as individual miners have made the decision to shut down rigs. Clearly there was a fundamental mining profitability support level in the USD 6,000-7,000 range, since that is where Bitcoin’s price was when mining peaked and plateaued. There are clearly numerous miners who became unprofitable on the descent from that level to less than USD 4,000 today, and now approximately 50% of the Bitcoin mining equipment that exists cannot profitably mine. The decrease in Bitcoin’s mining difficulty of 15% on 3 December 2018 could help bring some of those miners back online, at least if the price stays at current levels around USD 4,000, but this will not change the overall trend.
When it comes down to it, Bitcoin’s price is in control of Bitcoin mining profitability, and if the price goes up we could see a reversal of the hash rate downtrend and eventually a 2nd peak in Bitcoin’s network hash rate. However, if price continues to go down, the Bitcoin mining hash rate chart will follow a similar pattern to peak oil charts. The reality will likely be a combination of both. Bitcoin bear markets tend to last years, and get more severe, but eventually the rally comes and then Bitcoin exceeds its all-time record high. This would lead to a steady decrease in Bitcoin’s mining hash rate like the peak oil chart, followed by a rapid re-engagement of old mining rigs that have been taken offline, and then the addition of new generation Bitcoin mining rigs once the equilibrium hash rate exceeds 60 EH/s.
submitted by turtlecane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Halong Mining - Announcing the most efficient Bitcoin miner in the world.

Highlighting is my own:

Announcing the DragonMint miner series

The DragonMint 16T miner is the world’s most efficient Bitcoin miner, running faster and cooler than any competing miners. It’s the culmination of over 12 months research and development which has resulted in major advancements in mining technology including a brand new generation of ASIC mining chips. The DM8575 ASIC runs at a staggering 85GH per chip with power efficiency of around 0.075J/GH.
The DragonMint miner is the first step in a long strategy, which started in December 2016, to bring much needed competition and innovation to the Bitcoin mining arena. Over 100 world class experts and leaders in their respective fields have been contributing to and working on the project, including chip designers, electronics hardware specialists, and software designers. The project is motivated by, and driven to help facilitate greater decentralisation in Bitcoin mining at all levels, and make sha256 great again.
Now that we have finished the major prototyping and small run batch zero, we are ready to move onto mass production. This is the first stage of rollout, and simultaneously, relationships are being built with other channels to bring a wide variety of products based on the new ASIC chips.
Unlike many other mining projects, the DragonMint is not a design based on simulations. Around $30 million dollars have already been spent on research, development and prototyping miners, writing software and producing small batches of silicon wafers. The time, complexity and cost cannot be underestimated. The next step is mass production. Producing miners from scratch takes around 4 months including manufacturing the silicon chips. We are taking preorders for the next generation miner for delivery starting in March 2018.
We would like to see other Bitcoin mining hardware manufacturers compete equally although it is currently quite challenging due to both heavy competition and prohibitive startup costs. One of the ways we can assist is by publishing board designs and software to allow newcomers to iterate on already advanced design. Production of competitive ASIC chips is a whole different level of difficulty, so we believe this can be alleviated by making chips available in bulk to competitors. Bitcoin is inherently collaborative and we believe the incentives are aligned to promote a healthy mining ecosystem that is still profitable for the participants.
All our strengths aside, we recognise that success in this field is an uphill battle and the game is extremely competitive. Because of the time taken to design new technology and bring it to market, time advantage is a key strategy in order to gain a foothold against formidable competition. For this reason we will defer publishing board designs or software (either directly or through partner channels), until we the first batch of miners is near ready for shipping. Because we have considerable costs to recoup, particular details of our process will also not be made available until closer to shipping of the first batches, to give us a better chance of succeeding and being able to drive forward with innovation into the future.
We will publish more details on our blog, on this website and on Twitter @halongmining.
Demonstration video (Youtube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRCsQUyR7_I
submitted by StopAndDecrypt to btc [link] [comments]

IRC Log from Ravencoin Open Developer Meeting - Aug 24, 2018

[14:05] <@wolfsokta> Hello Everybody, sorry we're a bit late getting started
[14:05] == block_338778 [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.214.222.226] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Here are the topics we would like to cover today • 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] == Chatturga changed the topic of #ravencoin-dev to: 2.0.4 Need to upgrade - What we have done to communicate to the community • Unique Assets • iOS Wallet • General Q&A
[14:06] <@wolfsokta> Daben, could you mention what we have done to communicate the need for the 2.0.4 upgrade?
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:07] <@wolfsokta> Others here are free to chime in where they saw the message first.
[14:07] == hwhwhsushwban [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Client Quit]
[14:08] Whats up bois
[14:08] hi everyone
[14:08] hi hi
[14:08] <@wolfsokta> Discussing the 2.0.4 update and the need to upgrade.
[14:08] <@Chatturga> Sure. As most of you are aware, the community has been expressing concerns with the difficulty oscillations, and were asking that something be done to the difficulty retargeting. Many people submitted suggestions, and the devs decided to implement DGW.
[14:09] <@Tron> I wrote up a short description of why we're moving to a new difficulty adjustment. https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:09] <@Chatturga> I have made posts on discord, telegram, bitcointalk, reddit, and ravencointalk.org from testnet stages through current.
[14:10] <@Chatturga> If there are any other channels that can reach a large number of community members, I would love to have more.
[14:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Tron, that hasn't been shared to the community at large yet, but folks feel free to share it.
[14:10] When was this decision made and by whom and how?
[14:10] <@Chatturga> I have also communicated with the pool operators and exchanges about the update. Of all of the current pools, only 2 have not yet updated versions.
[14:11] <@wolfsokta> The decision was made by the developers through ongoing requests for weeks made by the community.
[14:12] <@wolfsokta> Evidence was provided by the community of the damages that could be caused to projects when the wild swings continue.
[14:12] So was there a meeting or vote? How can people get invited
[14:12] <@Tron> It was also informed by my conversations with some miners that recommended that we make the change before the coin died. They witnessed similar oscillations from which other coins never recovered.
[14:13] only two pools left to upgrade is good, what about the exchanges? Any word on how many of those have/have not upgraded?
[14:13] <@wolfsokta> We talked about here in our last meeting Bruce_. All attendees were asked if they had any questions or concerns.
[14:13] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] == roshii [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.41.251.25.100] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:13] sup roshii long time no see
[14:14] <@Chatturga> Bittrex, Cryptopia, and IDCM have all either updated or have announced their intent to update.
[14:14] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:15] sup russki
[14:15] what's the status here?
[14:15] I don’t think that was at all clear from the last dev meeting
[14:15] I can’t be the only person who didn’t understand it
[14:15] <@wolfsokta> Are there any suggestions on how to communicate the need to upgrade even further? I am concerned that others might also not understand.
[14:17] I’m not sold on the benefit and don’t understand the need for a hard fork — I think it’s a bad precedent to simply go rally exchanges to support a hard fork with little to no discussion
[14:17] so just to note, the exchanges not listed as being upgraded or have announced their intention to upgrade include: qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge (all with over $40k usd volume past 24 hours according to coinmarketcap)
[14:18] <@wolfsokta> I don't agree that there was little or no discussion at all.
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> Looking back at our meeting notes from two weeks ago "fork" was specifically asked about by BrianMCT.
[14:19] If individual devs have the power to simple decide to do something as drastic as a hard fork and can get exchanges and miners to do it that’s got a lot of issues with centralization
[14:19] <@wolfsokta> It had been implemented on testnet by then and discussed in the community for several weeks before that.
[14:19] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:19] howdy
[14:19] Everything I’ve seen has been related to the asset layer
[14:19] I have to agree with Bruce_, though I wasn't able to join the last meeting here. That said I support the fork
[14:20] Which devs made this decision to do a fork and how was it communicated?
[14:20] well mostly the community made the decision
[14:20] Consensus on a change is the heart of bitcoin development and I believe the devs have done a great job building that consensus
[14:20] a lot of miners were in uproar about the situation
[14:20] <@wolfsokta> All of the devs were supporting the changes. It wasn't done in isolation at all.
[14:21] This topic has been a huge discussion point within the RVN mining community for quite some time
[14:21] the community and miners have been having issues with the way diff is adjusted for quite some time now
[14:21] Sure I’m well aware of that -
[14:21] Not sold on the benefits of having difficulty crippled by rented hashpower?
[14:21] The community saw a problem. The devs got together and talked about a solution and implemented a solution
[14:21] I’m active in the community
[14:22] So well aware of the discussions on DGW etc
[14:22] Hard fork as a solution to a problem community had with rented hashpower (nicehash!!) sounds like the perfect decentralized scenario!
[14:23] hard forks are very dangerous
[14:23] mining parties in difficulty drops are too
[14:23] <@wolfsokta> Agreed, we want to keep them to an absolute minimum.
[14:23] But miners motivation it’s the main vote
[14:24] What would it take to convince you that constantly going from 4 Th/s to 500 Gh/s every week is worse for the long term health of the coin than the risk of a hard fork to fix it?
[14:24] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:24] This hardfork does include the asset layer right? if so why is it being delayed in implementation?
[14:24] <@wolfsokta> Come back Tron!
[14:24] coudl it have been implement through bip9 voting?
[14:24] also hard fork is activated by the community! that's a vote thing!
[14:24] @mrsushi to give people time to upgrade their wallet
[14:25] @under, it would be much hard to keep consensus with a bip9 change
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> We investigated that closely Under.
[14:25] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> See Tron's post for more details about that.
[14:25] <@spyder_> Hi Tron
[14:25] <@wolfsokta> https://medium.com/@tronblack/ravencoin-dark-gravity-wave-1da0a71657f7
[14:25] Sorry about that. Computer went to sleep.
[14:26] I'm wrong
[14:26] 2 cents. the release deadline of october 31st puts a bit of strain on getting code shipped. (duh). but fixing daa was important to the current health of the coin, and was widely suppported by current mining majority commuity. could it have been implemented in a different manner? yes . if we didnt have deadlines
[14:27] == wjcgiwgu283ik3cj [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.172.58.37.35] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[14:27] sushi this fork does not include assets. it's not being delayed though, we're making great progress for an Oct 31 target
[14:28] I don’t see the urgency but my vote doesn’t matter since my hash power is still CPUs
[14:28] <@wolfsokta> We're seeing the community get behind the change as well based on the amount of people jumping back in to mine through this last high difficulty phase.
[14:28] So that will be another hardfork?
[14:28] the fork does include the asset code though set to activate on oct 30th
[14:28] yes
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Yes, it will based on the upgrade voting through the BIP9 process.
[14:29] I wanted to ask about burn rates from this group: and make a proposal.
[14:29] we're also trying hard to make it the last for awhile
[14:29] Can you clear up the above — there will be this one and another hard fork?
[14:29] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we could discuss that under towards the end of the meeting.
[14:30] If this one has the asset layer is there something different set for October
[14:30] <@wolfsokta> Yes, there will be another hard fork on October 31st once the voting process is successful.
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> The code is in 2.0.4 now and assets are active on testnet
[14:31] Bruce, the assets layer is still being worked on. Assets is active on mainnet. So in Oct 31 voting will start. and if it passes, the chain will fork.
[14:31] this one does NOT include assets for mainnet Bruce -- assets are targeted for Oct 31
[14:31] not***
[14:31] not active****
[14:31] correct me if I'm wrong here, but if everyone upgrades to 2.0.4 for this fork this week, the vote will automatically pass on oct 31st correct? nothing else needs to be done
[14:31] Will if need another download or does this software download cover both forks?
[14:31] <@wolfsokta> Correct Urgo
[14:32] thats how the testnet got activated and this one shows "asset activation status: waiting until 10/30/2018 20:00 (ET)"
[14:32] Will require another upgrade before Oct 31
[14:32] thank you for the clarification wolfsokta
[14:32] <@wolfsokta> It covers both forks, but we might have additional bug fixes in later releases.
[14:32] So users DL one version now and another one around October 30 which activates after that basically?
[14:33] I understand that, but I just wanted to make it clear that if people upgrade to this version for this fork and then don't do anything, they are also voting for the fork on oct 31st
[14:33] Oh okay — one DL?
[14:33] Bruce, Yes.
[14:33] Ty
[14:33] well there is the issue that there maybe some further consensus bugs dealing with the pruneability of asset transactions that needs to be corrected between 2.0.4 and mainnet. so i would imagine that there will be further revisions required to upgrade before now and october 31
[14:33] @under that is correct.
[14:34] I would highly recommend bumping the semver up to 3.0.0 for the final pre 31st release so that the public know to definitely upgrade
[14:34] @under +1
[14:35] out of curiosity, have there been many bugs found with the assets from the version released in july for testnet (2.0.3) until this version? or is it solely a change to DGW?
[14:35] <@wolfsokta> That's not a bad idea under.
[14:35] <@spyder_> @under good idea
[14:35] @urgo. Bugs are being found and fixed daily.
[14:35] Any time the protocol needs to change, there would need to be a hard fork (aka upgrade). It is our hope that we can activate feature forks through the BIP process (as we are doing for assets). Mining pools and exchanges will need to be on the newest software at the point of asset activation - should the mining hash power vote for assets.
[14:35] blondfrogs: gotcha
[14:35] There have been bugs found (and fixed). Testing continues. We appreciate all the bug reports you can give us.
[14:36] <@wolfsokta> Yes! Thank you all for your help in the community.
[14:37] (pull requests with fixes and test coverage would be even better!)
[14:37] asset creation collision is another major issue. current unfair advantage or nodes that fore connect to mining pools will have network topologies that guarantee acceptance. I had discussed the possibility of fee based asset creation selection and i feel that would be a more equal playing ground for all users
[14:38] *of nodes that force
[14:38] <@wolfsokta> What cfox said, we will always welcome development help.
[14:38] So just to make sure everyone know. When assets is ready to go live on oct 31st. Everyone that wants to be on the assets chain without any problems will have to download the new binary.
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> The latest binary.
[14:39] under: already in the works
[14:39] excellent to hear
[14:39] == UserJonPizza [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.24.218.60.237] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:39] <@wolfsokta> Okay, we've spent a bunch of time on that topic and I think it was needed. Does anybody have any other suggestions on how to get the word out even more?
[14:40] maybe preface all 2.0.X releases as pre-releases... minimize the number of releases between now and 3.0 etc
[14:41] <@wolfsokta> Bruce_ let's discuss further offline.
[14:41] wolfsokta: which are the remaining two pools that need to be upgraded? I've identified qbtc, upbit, and cryptobridge as high volume exchanges that haven't said they were going to do it yet
[14:41] so people can help reach out to them
[14:41] f2pool is notoriously hard to contact
[14:41] are they on board?
[14:42] <@wolfsokta> We could use help reaching out to QBTC and Graviex
[14:42] I can try to contact CB if you want?
[14:42] <@Chatturga> The remaining pools are Ravenminer and PickAxePro.
[14:42] <@Chatturga> I have spoken with their operators, the update just hasnt been applied yet.
[14:42] ravenminer is one of the largest ones too. If they don't upgrade that will be a problem
[14:42] okay good news
[14:42] (PickAxePro sounds like a Ruby book)
[14:43] I strongly feel like getting the word out on ravencoin.org would be beneficial
[14:44] that site is sorely in need of active contribution
[14:44] Anyone can volunteer to contribute
[14:44] <@wolfsokta> Okay, cfox can you talk about the status of unique assets?
[14:44] sure
[14:45] <@wolfsokta> I'll add website to the end of our topics.
[14:45] code is in review and will be on the development branch shortly
[14:45] would it make sense to have a page on the wiki (or somewhere else) that lists the wallet versions run by pools & exchanges?
[14:45] will be in next release
[14:45] furthermore, many sites have friendly link to the standard installers for each platform, if the site linked to the primary installers for each platform to reduce github newb confusion that would be good as well
[14:46] likely to a testnetv5 although that isn't settled
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Thanks cfox.
[14:46] <@wolfsokta> Are there any questions about unique assets, and how they work?
[14:47] after the # are there any charachters you cant use?
[14:47] will unique assets be constrained by the asset alphanumeric set?
[14:47] ^
[14:47] <@Chatturga> @Urgo there is a page that tracks and shows if they have updated, but it currently doesnt show the actual version that they are on.
[14:47] a-z A-Z 0-9
[14:47] <@Chatturga> https://raven.wiki/wiki/Exchange_notifications#Pools
[14:47] There are a few. Mostly ones that mess with command-line
[14:47] you'll be able to use rpc to do "issueunique MATRIX ['Neo','Tank','Tank Brother']" and it will create three assets for you (MATRIX#Neo, etc.)
[14:47] @cfox - No space
[14:48] @under the unique tags have an expanded set of characters allowed
[14:48] Chatturga: thank you
[14:48] @UJP yes there are some you can't use -- I'll try to post gimmie a sec..
[14:49] Ok. Thank you much!
[14:49] 36^36 assets possible and 62^62 uniques available per asset?
[14:49] <@spyder_> std::regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$");
[14:50] regex UNIQUE_TAG_CHARACTERS("^[[email protected]$%&*()[\\]{}<>_.;?\\\\:]+$")
[14:50] oh thanks Mark
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> Okay, next up. I want to thank everybody for helping test the iOS wallet release.
[14:51] <@wolfsokta> We are working with Apple to get the final approval to post it to the App Store
[14:51] @under max asset length is 30, including unique tag
[14:51] Does the RVN wallet have any other cryptos or just RVN?
[14:52] == BruceFenton [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[14:52] will the android and ios source be migrated to the ravenproject github?
[14:52] I've been adding beta test users. I've added about 80 new users in the last few days.
[14:52] <@wolfsokta> Just RVN, and we want to focus on adding the asset support to the wallet.
[14:53] == Bruce_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.67.189.233.170] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> Yes, the code will also be freely available on GitHub for both iOS and Android. Thank you Roshii!
[14:53] Would you consider the iOS wallet to be a more secure place for one's holdings than say, a Mac connected to the internet?
[14:53] will there be a chance of a more user freindly wallet with better graphics like the iOS on PC?
[14:53] the android wallet is getting updated for DGW, correct?
[14:53] <@wolfsokta> That has come up in our discussion Pizza.
[14:54] QT framework is pretty well baked in and is cross platform. if we get some qt gurus possibly
[14:54] Phones are pretty good because the wallet we forked uses the TPM from modern phones.
[14:54] Most important is to write down and safely store your 12 word seed.
[14:54] TPM?
[14:54] <@wolfsokta> A user friendly wallet is one of our main goals.
[14:55] TPM == Trusted Platform Module
[14:55] Ahhh thanks
[14:55] just please no electron apps. they are full of security holes
[14:55] <@spyder_> It is whats makes your stuffs secure
[14:55] not fit for crypto
[14:55] under: depends on who makes it
[14:55] The interface screenshots I've seen look like Bread/Loaf wallet ... I assume that's what was forked from
[14:55] ;)
[14:56] <@wolfsokta> @roshii did you see the question about the Android wallet and DGW?
[14:56] Yes, it was a fork of breadwallet. We like their security.
[14:56] chromium 58 is the last bundled electron engine and has every vuln documented online by google. so unless you patch every vuln.... methinks not
[14:56] Agreed, great choice
[14:57] <@wolfsokta> @Under, what was your proposal?
[14:58] All asset creation Transactions have a mandatory OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY of 1 year(or some agreed upon time interval), and the 500 RVN goes to a multisig devfund, run by a custodial group. We get: 1) an artificial temporary burn, 2) sustainable community and core development funding for the long term, after OSTK/Medici 3) and the reintroduction of RVN supply at a fixed schedule, enabling the removal of the 42k max cap of total As
[14:58] *im wrong on the 42k figure
[14:58] <@wolfsokta> Interesting...
[14:59] <@wolfsokta> Love to hear others thoughts.
[14:59] Update: I posted a message on the CryptoBridge discord and one of their support members @stepollo#6276 said he believes the coin team is already aware of the fork but he would forward the message about the fork over to them right now anyway
[14:59] Ifs 42 million assets
[14:59] yep.
[15:00] I have a different Idea. If the 500 RVN goes to a dev fund its more centralized. The 500 RVN should go back into the unmined coins so miners can stay for longer.
[15:01] *without a hardfork
[15:01] <@wolfsokta> lol
[15:01] that breaks halving schedule, since utxos cant return to an unmined state.
[15:01] @UJP back into coinbase is interesting. would have to think about how that effects distribution schedule, etc.
[15:01] only way to do that would be to dynamicaly grow max supply
[15:02] and i am concerned already about the max safe integer on various platforms at 21 billion
[15:02] js chokes on ravencoin already
[15:02] <@wolfsokta> Other thoughts on Under's proposal? JS isn't a real language. ;)
[15:02] Well Bitcoin has more than 21 bn Sats
[15:02] Is there somebody who wants to volunteer to fix js.
[15:02] hahaha
[15:03] I honestly would hate for the coins to go to a dev fund. It doesn't seem like Ravencoin to me.
[15:03] Yep, but we're 21 billion x 100,000,000 -- Fits fine in a 64-bit integer, but problematic for some languages.
[15:03] <@wolfsokta> Thanks UJP
[15:04] <@wolfsokta> We're past time but I would like to continue if you folks are up for it.
[15:04] Yeah no coins can go anywhere centrality contorted like a dev fund cause that would mean someone has to run it and the code can’t decide that so it’s destined to break
[15:05] currently and long term with out the financial backing of development then improvements and features will be difficult. we are certainly thankful for our current development model. but if a skunkworks project hits a particular baseline of profitability any reasonable company would terminate it
[15:05] Yes let’s contibue for sure
[15:05] the alternative to a dev fund in my mind would be timelocking those funds back to the issuers change address
[15:06] But we can’t have dev built in to the code — it has to be open source like Bitcoin and monero and Litecoin - it’s got drawbacks but way more advantages- it’s the best model
[15:06] Dev funding
[15:06] i highly reccommend not reducing the utility of raven by removing permanently the supply
[15:07] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:07] timelocking those funds accompllishes the same sacrifice
[15:07] @under timelocking is interesting too
[15:07] How exactly does timelocking work?
[15:07] <@wolfsokta> ^
[15:07] I mean you could change the price of assets with the Block reward halfing.
[15:07] == Roshiix [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.105.67.2.212] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:08] funds cant be spent from an address until a certain time passes
[15:08] but in a what magical fairy land do people continue to work for free forever. funding development is a real issue... as much as some might philosphically disagree. its a reality
[15:08] You’d still need a centralized party to decide how to distribute the funds
[15:08] even unofficially blockstream supports bitcoin devs
[15:08] on chain is more transparent imho
[15:09] == Tron_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:09] @UJP yes there are unlimited strategies. one factor that I think is v important is giving application developers a way to easily budget for projects which leads to flat fees
[15:09] If the project is a success like many of believe it will be, I believe plenty of people will gladly done to a dev fund. I don't think the 500 should be burned.
[15:09] *donate
[15:09] centralized conservatorship, directed by community voting process
[15:10] == Tron [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.173.241.144.77] has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
[15:10] <@wolfsokta> Thanks Under, that's an interesting idea that we should continue to discuss in the community. You also mentioned the existing website.
[15:10] It would need to be something where everyone with a QT has a vote
[15:10] think his computer went to sleep again :-/
[15:10] I agree UJP
[15:10] with the website
[15:10] No that’s ico jargon — any development fund tied to code would have to be centralized and would therefor fail
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] ^
[15:11] dashes model for funding seems to be pretty decentralized
[15:11] community voting etc
[15:11] Once you have a dev fund tied to code then who gets to run it? Who mediates disputes?
[15:11] oh well another discussion
[15:11] Dash has a CEO
[15:12] <@wolfsokta> Yeah, let's keep discussing in the community spaces.
[15:12] Dash does have a good model. It's in my top ten.
[15:12] having the burn go to a dev fund is absolute garbage
[15:12] These dev chats should be more target than broad general discussions — changing the entire nature of the coin and it’s economics is best discussed in the RIPs or other means
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> Yup, let's move on.
[15:13] just becuase existing implementation are garbage doesnt mean that all possible future governance options are garbage
[15:13] <@wolfsokta> To discussing the website scenario mentioned by under.
[15:13] the website needs work. would be best if it could be migrated to github as well.
[15:13] What about this: Anyone can issue a vote once the voting feature has been added, for a cost. The vote would be what the coins could be used for.
[15:14] features for the site that need work are more user friendly links to binaries
[15:14] <@wolfsokta> We investigated how bitcoin has their website in Github to make it easy for contributors to jump in.
[15:14] that means active maintenance of the site instead of its current static nature
[15:15] <@wolfsokta> I really like how it's static html, which makes it super simple to host/make changes.
[15:15] the static nature isn’t due to interface it’s due to no contributors
[15:15] no contribution mechanism has been offered
[15:15] github hosted would allow that
[15:16] We used to run the Bitcoin website from the foundation & the GitHub integration seemed to cause some issues
[15:16] its doesnt necessarily have to be hosted by github but the page source should be on github and contributions could easily be managed and tracked
[15:17] for example when a new release is dropped, the ability for the downlaods section to have platform specific easy links to the general installers is far better for general adoption than pointing users to github releases
[15:18] <@wolfsokta> How do people currently contribute to the existing website?
[15:18] they dont?
[15:18] We did that and it was a complete pain to host and keep working — if someone wants to volunteer to do that work hey can surely make the website better and continually updated — but they could do that in Wordpress also
[15:19] I’d say keep an eye out for volunteers and maybe we can get a group together who can improve the site
[15:19] == digitalvap0r-xmr [[email protected]/web/cgi-irc/kiwiirc.com/ip.67.255.25.134] has joined #ravencoin-dev
[15:19] And they can decide best method
[15:20] I host the source for the explorer on github and anyone can spin it up instantly on a basic aws node. changes can be made to interface etc, and allow for multilingual translations which have been offered by some community members
[15:20] there are models that work. just saying it should be looked at
[15:20] i gotta run thank you all for your contributions
[15:20] <@wolfsokta> I feel we should explore the source for the website being hosted in GitHub and discuss in our next dev meeting.
[15:21] <@Chatturga> Thanks Under!
[15:21] == under [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.72.200.168.56] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Thanks, we also need to drop soon.
[15:21] There is no official site so why care. Someone will do better than the next if RVN is worth it anyway. That's already the case.
[15:21] <@wolfsokta> Let's do 10 mins of open Q&A
[15:22] <@wolfsokta> Go...
[15:23] <@Chatturga> Beuller?
[15:24] No questions ... just a comment that the devs and community are great and I'm happy to be a part of it
[15:24] I think everyone moved to discord. I'll throw this out there. How confident is the dev team that things will be ready for oct 31st?
[15:24] <@wolfsokta> Alright! Thanks everybody for joining us today. Let's plan to get back together as a dev group in a couple of weeks.
[15:25] thanks block!
[15:25] <@wolfsokta> Urgo, very confident
[15:25] Please exclude trolls from discord who havent read the whitepaper
[15:25] great :)
[15:25] "things" will be ready..
[15:25] Next time on discord right?
[15:25] woah why discord?
[15:25] some of the suggestions here are horrid
[15:25] this is better less point
[15:25] == blondfrogs [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.185.245.87.219] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:25] Assets are working well on testnet. Plan is to get as much as we can safely test by Sept 30 -- this includes dev contributions. Oct will be heavy testing and making sure it is safe.
[15:26] people
[15:26] <@wolfsokta> Planning on same time, same IRC channel.
[15:26] == BW_ [[email protected]/web/freenode/ip.138.68.243.202] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[15:26] @xmr any in particular?
[15:27] (or is "here" discord?)
[15:27] Cheers - Tron
[15:27] "Cheers - Tron" - Tron
submitted by Chatturga to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

bitcoin mining profitable in the US? Where are my calculations off?

Someone tell me where my calculations are wrong. Amazon has this miner advertised:
Antminer S9 ~14.0TH/s @ .098W/GH 16nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner
So that would consume 14000*0.98=1372 watts.
Given my electricity costs (0.12 $/kwhr), I would make $8.19 for every $1 of electricity. In a month, I would make $884.
That can't be right. Where did I screw up?
Here is a python script to calculate that:
dollars_per_kwhr= 173.17 / 1390 dollars_per_btc= 6000 miner_kwatts=1.372 miner_terahashes_per_second= 14.0 network_terahashes_per_second= 9e6 block_time=600 block_reward=25 rev_dollars_per_sec= dollars_per_btc * block_reward * miner_terahashes_per_second / (network_terahashes_per_second * block_time) cost_dollars_per_sec= dollars_per_kwhr*miner_kwatts/3600 print "rev={}".format(rev_dollars_per_sec) print "cost={}".format(cost_dollars_per_sec) print "ratio={}".format(rev_dollars_per_sec/cost_dollars_per_sec) print "profit per month={}".format(3600*24*30*(rev_dollars_per_sec-cost_dollars_per_sec)) 
edit: thanks to Personthingman2. 25 vs 12.5 block reward. when I change that, my script outputs: rev=0.000194444444444 cost=4.74798641087e-05 ratio=4.09530330582 profit per month=380.93219223
This is a $4000 unit, so it pays for itself in 10 months. OK. So whether I will ever make money on this depends heavily on the growth of the network hashing rate over time, and the increase in BTC price.
edit2: I am guessing that the answer to my question is that I would be lucky for the unit to keep working long enough to pay for itself. It would likely break down before reaching that point.
submitted by SilencingNarrative to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining & The Beauty Of Capitalism

Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,
While the price of bitcoin drops, miners get more creative... and some flourish.
The bitcoin price is crashing; naysayers and doomsayers are having a field day. The demise of the dominant cryptocurrency is finally happening — or is it?
Bitcoin has been buried hundreds of times, most notably during the brutal 90 percent decline from 2013 to 2015. And yet it has always made a comeback.
Where the skeptics are correct: The second bitcoin bubble burst in December of last year and the price is down roughly 80 percent from its high of $20,000. Nobody knows whether and when it will see these lofty heights again.
As a result, millions of speculators have been burned, and big institutions haven’t showed up to bridge the gap.
This also happened on a smaller scale in 2013 after a similar 100x run-up, and it was necessary.

Time to Catch Up

What most speculators and even some serious proponents of the independent and decentralized monetary system don’t understand: Bitcoin needs these pauses to make improvements in its infrastructure.
Exchanges, which could not handle the trading volumes at the height of the frenzy and did not return customer service inquiries, can take a breather and upgrade their systems and hire capable people.
The technology itself needs to make progress and this needs time. Projects like the lightning network, a system which delivers instant bitcoin payments at very little cost and at virtually unlimited scale is now only available to expert programmers.
A higher valuation is only justified if these improvements reach the mass market.
And since we live in a world where everything financial is tightly regulated, for better or worse, this area also needs to catch up, since regulators are chronically behind the curve of technological progress.
And of course, there is bitcoin mining. The vital infrastructure behind securing the bitcoin network and processing its transactions has been concentrated in too few hands and in too few places, most notably China, which still hosts about 70 percent of the mining capacity.

The Case For Mining

Critics have always complained that bitcoin mining consumes “too much” electricity, right now about as much as the Czech Republic. In energy terms this is around 65 terawatt hours or 230,000,000 gigajoules, costing $3.3 billion dollars according to estimates by Digiconomist.
For the non-physicists among us, this is around as much as consumed by six million energy-guzzling U.S. households per year.
All those estimates are imprecise because the aggregate cannot know how much energy each of the different bitcoin miners consumes and how much that electricity costs. But they are a reasonable rough estimate.
So it’s worth exploring why mining is necessary to begin with and whether the electricity consumption is justified.
Anything and everything humans do consumes resources. The question then is always: Is it worth it? And: Who decides?
This question then leads to the next question: Is it worth having and using money? Most people would argue yes, because using money instead of barter in fact makes economic transactions faster and cheaper and thus saves resources, natural and human.

_Merchants exchange goods with the inhabitants of Tidore, Indonesia, circa 1550. Barter was supplanted by using money because it is more efficient. (Archive/Getty Images)_If we are generously inclined, we will grant bitcoin the status of a type of money or at least currency as it meets the general requirements of being recognizable, divisible, portable, durable, is accepted in exchange for other goods and services, and in this case it is even limited in supply.
So having any type of money has a price, whether it’s gold, dollar bills, or numbers on the screen of your online banking system. In the case of bitcoin, it’s the electricity and the capital for the computing equipment, as well as the human resources to run these operations.
If we think having money in general is a good idea and some people value the decentralized and independent nature of bitcoin then it would be worth paying for verifying transactions on the bitcoin network as well as keeping the network secure and sound: Up until the point where the resources consumed would outweigh the efficiency benefits. Just like most people don’t think it’s a bad idea to use credit cards and banks, which consume electricity too.
However, bitcoin is a newcomer and this is why it’s being scrutinized even more so than the old established players.

Different Money, Different Costs

How many people know how much electricity, human lives, and other resources gold mining consumes or has consumed in the course of history? What about the banking system? Branches, servers, air-conditioning, staff? What about printing dollar notes and driving them around in armored trucks?
What about the social effects of monetary mismanagement of bank and government money like inflation as well as credit deflations? Gold gets a pass here.
Most people haven’t asked that question, which is why it’s worth pointing out the only comprehensive study done on the topic in 2014. In “An Order of Magnitude” the engineer Hass McCook analyzes the different money systems and reaches mind-boggling conclusions.
The study is a bit dated and of course the aggregations are also very rough estimates, but the ball park numbers are reasonable and the methodology sound.
In fact, according to the study, bitcoin is the most economic of all the different forms of money.
Gold mining in 2014 used 475 million GJ, compared to bitcoin’s 230 million in 2018. The banking system in 2014 used 2.3 billion gigajoules.
Over 100 people per year die trying to mine gold. But mining costs more than electricity. It consumes around 300,000 liters of water per kilogram of gold mined as well as 150 kilogram (330 pounds) of cyanide and 1500 tons of waste and rubble.
The international banking system has been used in all kinds of fraudulent activity throughout history: terrorist financing, money laundering, and every other criminal activity under the sun at a cost of trillions of dollars and at an order of magnitude higher than the same transactions done with cryptocurrency and bitcoin.
And of course, while gold has a relatively stable value over time, our bank and government issued money lost about 90 percent of its purchasing power over the last century, because it can be created out of thin air. This leads to inflation and a waste of physical and human resources because it distorts the process of capital allocation.

_The dollar has lost more than 90 percent of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. (Source: St. Louis Fed)_This is on top of the hundreds of thousands of bank branches, millions of ATMs and employees which all consume electricity and other resources, 10 times as much electricity alone as the bitcoin network.
According to monetary philosopher Saifedean Ammous, author of “The Bitcoin Standard,” the social benefit of hard money, i.e. money that can’t be printed by government decree, cannot even be fathomed; conversely, the true costs of easy money—created by government fiat and bank credit—are difficult to calculate.
According to Ammous, bitcoin is the hardest money around, even harder than gold because its total supply is capped, whereas the gold supply keeps increasing at about 1-2 percent every year.
“Look at the era of the classical gold standard, from 1871, the end of the Franco–Prussian War, until the beginning of World War I. There’s a reason why this is known as the Golden Era, the Gilded Age, and La Belle Epoque. It was a time of unrivaled human flourishing all over the world. Economic growth was everywhere. Technology was being spread all over the world. Peace and prosperity were increasing everywhere around the world. Technological innovations were advancing.
“I think this is no coincidence. What the gold standard allowed people to do is to have a store of value that would maintain its value in the future. And that gave people a low time preference, that gave people the incentive to think of the long term, and that made people want to invest in things that would pay off over the long term … bitcoin is far closer to gold. It is a digital equivalent of gold,” he said in an interview with The Epoch Times.
Of course, contrary to the gold standard that Ammous talks about, bitcoin doesn’t have a track record of being sound money in practice. In theory it meets all the criteria, but in the real world it hasn’t been adopted widely and has been so volatile as to be unusable as a reliable store of value or as the underlying currency of a productive lending market.
The proponents argue that over time, these problems will be solved the same way gold spread itself throughout the monetary sphere replacing copper and seashells, but even Ammous concedes the process may take decades and the outcome is far from certain. Gold is the safe bet for sound money, bitcoin has potential.
There is another measure where bitcoin loses out, according to a recent study by researchers from the Oak Ridge Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio.
It is the amount of energy expended per dollar for different monetary instruments. One dollar worth of bitcoin costs 17 megajoules to mine versus five for gold and seven for platinum. But the study omits the use of cyanide, water, and other physical resources in mining physical metals.
In general, the comparisons in dollar terms go against bitcoin because it is worth relatively less, only $73 billion in total at the time of writing. An issue that could be easily fixed at a higher price, but a higher price is only justified if the infrastructure improves, adoption increases, volatility declines, and the network proves its resilience to attacks over time.
In the meantime, market participants still value the fact they can own a currency independent of the government, completely digital, easily fungible, and limited in supply, and relatively decentralized. And the market as a whole is willing to pay a premium for these factors reflected in the higher per dollar prices for mining bitcoin.

The Creativity of Bitcoin Mining

But where bitcoin mining lacks in scale, it makes up for it in creativity.
In theory—and in practice—bitcoin mining can be done anywhere where there is cheap electricity. So bitcoin mining operations can be conducted not where people are (banking) or where government is (fiat cash) or where gold is (gold mining)—it can be done everywhere where there is cheap electricity
Some miners are flocking to the heat of the Texan desert where gas is virtually available for free, thanks to another oil revolution.
Other miners go to places where there is cheap wind, water, or other renewable energy.
This is because they don’t have to build bank branches, printing presses, and government buildings, or need to put up excavators and conveyor belts to dig gold out of the ground.
All they need is internet access and a home for the computers that look like a shipping container, each one of which has around 200 specialized bitcoin mining computers in them.
“The good thing about bitcoin mining is that it doesn’t matter where on earth a transaction happens, we can verify it in our data center here. The miners are part of the decentralized philosophy of bitcoin, it’s completely independent of your location as well,” said Moritz Jäger, chief technology officer at bitcoin Mining company Northern Bitcoin AG.

Centralized Mining

But so far, this decentralization hasn’t worked out as well as it sounds in theory.
Because Chinese local governments had access to subsidized electricity, it was profitable for officials to cut deals with bitcoin mining companies and supply them with cheap electricity in exchange for jobs and cutbacks. Sometimes the prices were as low as 2 dollar cents to 4 dollar cents per kilowatt hour.
This is why the majority of bitcoin mining is still concentrated in China (around 70 percent) where it was the most profitable, but only because the Chinese central planners subsidized the price of electricity.
This set up led to the by and large unwanted result that the biggest miner of bitcoin, a company called Bitmain, is also the biggest manufacturer of specialized computing equipment for bitcoin mining. The company reported revenues of $2.8 billion for the first half of 2018.

Tourists walk on the dunes near a power plant in Xiangshawan Desert in Ordos of Inner Mongolia, in this file photo. bitcoin miners have enjoyed favorable electricity rates in places like Ordos for a long time. (Feng Li/Getty Images)Centralized mining is a problem because whenever there is one player or a conglomerate of players who control more than 50 percent of the network computing power, they could theoretically crash the network by spending the same bitcoin twice, the so called “double spending problem.“
They don’t have an incentive to do so because it would probably ruin the bitcoin price and their business, but it’s better not to have to rely on one group of people controlling an entire money system. After all, we have that exact same system with central banking and bitcoin was set up as a decentralized alternative.
So far, no player or conglomerate ever reached that 51 percent threshold, at least not since bitcoin’s very early days, but many market participants always thought Bitmain’s corner of the market is a bit too close for comfort.
This favorable environment for Chinese bitcoin mining has been changing with a crack down on local government electricity largess as well as a crackdown on cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin itself and mining bitcoin remain legal in China but cryptocurrency exchanges have been banned since late 2017.
But more needs to be done for bitcoin to become independent of the caprice of a centralized oppressive regime and local government bureaucrats.

Northern Bitcoin Case Study

Enter Northern Bitcoin AG. The company isn’t the only one which is exploring mining opportunities with renewable energies in locations other than China.
But it is special because of the extraordinary set up it has for its operations, the fact that it is listed on the stock exchange in Germany, and the opportunities for scaling it discovered.
The operations of Northern Bitcoin combine the beauties of bitcoin and capitalism in one.
Like Texas has a lot of oil and free gas and it makes sense to use the gas rather than burn it, Norway has a lot of water, especially water moving down the mountains due to rainfall and melting snow.
And it makes sense to use the power of the movement of the water, channel it through pipes into generators to create very cheap and almost unlimited electricity. Norway generates north of 95 percent of its total electricity from hydropower.

A waterfall next to a hydropowerplant near Sandane, Norway, Oct. 25, 2018. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)Capitalism does not distinguish between renewable and fossil. It uses what is the most expedient. In this case, it is clearly water in Norway, and gas in Texas.
As a side note on the beauties of real capital and the fact that capital and the environment need not be enemies, the water in one of the hydropowerplants close to the Northern Bitcoin facility is piped through a generator made in 1920 by J.M. Voith AG, a company from Heidenheim Germany.
The company was established in 1867 and is still around today. The generator was produced in 1920 and is still producing electricity today.

Excess Power

In the remote regions of Northern Norway, there aren’t that many people or industry who would use the electricity. And rather than transport it over hundreds of miles to the industrial centers of Europe, the industries of the future are moving to Norway to the source of the cheap electricity.
Of course, it is not just bitcoin mining, but other data and computing heavy operations like server farms for cloud computing that can be neatly packaged into one of those containers and shipped up north.
“The containers are beautiful. They are produced in the middle of Germany where the hardware is enabled and tested. Then we put it on a truck and send it up here. When the truck arrives on the outside we lift it on the container vehicle. Two hours after the container arrives, it’s in the container rack. And 40 hours later we enable the cooling, network, power, other systems, and it’s online,” said Mats Andersson, a spokesman for the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway, where Northern Bitcoin has its operations. Plug and play.

A Northern Bitcoin data container inside the Lefdal Mine data center, in Måløy, Norway. (Northern Bitcoin)If the cheap electricity wasn’t enough—around 5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 17 cents in Germany—Norway also provides the perfect storage for these data containers, which are normally racked up in open air parks above the ground.
Also here, the resource allocation is beautiful. Instead of occupying otherwise useful and beautiful parcels of land and nature, the Northern Bitcoin containers and others are stored in the old Lefdal olivine mine.
Olivine is a mineral used for steel production and looks green. Very fitting. Hence also the name of the data center: Lefdal Mine.
“We take the green mineral out and we take the green IT in,” said Andersson.

Efficiency, Efficiency

Using the old mine as storage for the data center makes the whole process even more resource efficient.
Why? So far, we’ve only been talking about bitcoin mining using a lot of energy. But what for? Before you have actually seen the process in action—and it is similar for other computing operations—you cannot imagine how bizarre it is.
Most of the electricity is used to prevent the computers from overheating. So it’s not even the processors themselves; it’s the fans which cool the computer that use the most juice.
This is where the mine helps, because it’s rather cool 160 meters (525 feet) below sea level; certainly cooler than in the Texas desert.
But it gets even better. On top of the air blow-cooling the computer, the Lefdal data center uses a fresh water system to pump through the containers in pipes.
The fans can then circulate air over the cool pipes which transfer the heat to the water. One can feel the difference when touching the different pipes.
The fresh water closed circle loop then completes the “green” or resource efficiency cycle by transferring its heat to ice cold water from the nearby Fjord.
The water is sucked in through a pipe from the Fjord, the heat gets transferred without the water being mixed, and the water flows back to the Fjord, without any impact on the environment.
To top it all off, the mine has natural physical security far better than open air data centers and is even protected from an electromagnetic pulse blast because it’s underground.

_The Nordfjord near Måløy, Norway. The Lefdal data center takes the cold water from the fjord and uses it to cool the computer inside the mine. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)_Company Dynamics

Given this superlative set up, Northern Bitcoin wants to ramp up production as fast as possible at the Lefdal mine and other similar places in Norway, which have more mountains where data centers can be housed.
At the moment, Northern Bitcoin has 15 containers with 210 mining machines each. The 15 containers produce around 5 bitcoin per day at a total cost of around $2,500 dollars at the end of November 2018 and after the difficulty of solving the math problems went down by ~17 percent.
Most of it is for electricity; the rest is for leasing the containers, renting the mine space, buying and writing off the mining computers, personnel, overhead, etc.
Even at the current relatively depressed prices of around $4000, that’s a profit of $1500 per bitcoin or $7,500 per day.
But the goal is to ramp it up to 280 containers until 2019, producing 100 bitcoin per day. Again, the company is in the sweet spot to do this.
As opposed to the beginning of the year when one could not procure a mining computer from Bitmain even if one’s life depended on it, the current bear market has made them cheap and relatively available both new and second had from miners who had to cease operations because they can’t produce at low bitcoin prices.

Northern Bitcoin containers inside the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway. (Northern Bitcoin)What about the data shipping containers? They are manufactured by a company called Rittal who is the world market leader. So it helps that the owner of Rittal also owns 30 percent of the Lefdal mine, providing preferential access to the containers.
Northern Bitcoin said it has enough capital available for the intermediate goal of ramping up to 50 containers until the end of year but may tap the capital markets again for the next step.
The company can also take advantage of the lower German corporate tax rate because revenue is only recorded when the bitcoin are sold in Germany, not when they are mined in Norway.
Of course, every small-cap stock—especially bitcoin companies—have their peculiarities and very high risks. As an example, Northern Bitcoin’s financial statements, although public, aren’t audited.
The equipment in the Lefdal mine in Norway is real and the operations are controlled by the Lefdal personnel, but one has to rely on exclusive information from the company for financials and cost figures, so buyer beware.

Norway Powerhouse?

Northern Bitcoin wants to have 280 containers, representing around 5 percent of the network’s computing power.
But the Lefdal mine alone has a capacity to power and cool 1,500 containers in a 200 megawatt facility, once it is fully built out.
“Here you have all the space, power, and cooling that you need. … Here you can grow,” said Lefdal’s Andersson.

A mine shaft in the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway. The whole mine will have a capacity for 1500 containers once fully built out. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)The Norwegian government was behind an initiative to bring computing power to Norway and make it one of the prime destinations for data centers at the beginning of this decade.
To that effect, the local governments own part of the utility companies which operate the power plants and own part of the Lefdal Mine and other locations. But even without notable subsidies (i.e. cash payments to companies), market players were able to figure it out, for everybody’s benefit.
The utilities win because they can sell their cheap electricity close to home. The computing companies like IBM and Northern Bitcoin win because they can get cheap electricity, storage, and security. Data center operators like Lefdal win because they can charge rent for otherwise unused and unneeded space.
However, in a recent about face, the central government in Oslo has decided to remove cryptocurrency miners from the list of companies which pay a preferential tax rate on electricity consumption.
Normally, energy intensive companies, including data centers, pay a preferential tax on electricity consumed of 0.48 øre ($0.00056 ). According to a report by Norwegian media Aftenposten, this tax will rise to 16.58 øre ($0.019) in 2019 for cryptocurrency miners exclusively.
The argument by left wing politician Lars Haltbrekken who sponsored the initiative: “Norway cannot continue to provide huge tax incentives for the most dirty form of cryptocurrency output […] [bitcoin] requires a lot of energy and generates large greenhouse gas emissions globally.”
Since Norway generates its electricity using hydro, precisely the opposite is true: No greenhouse gas emissions, or any emissions for that matter would be produced, if all cryptomining was done in Norway. As opposed to China, where mining is done with coal and with emissions.
But not only in Norway is the share of renewable and emission free energy high. According to research by Coinshares, Bitcoin’s consumes about 77.6 percent of its energy in the form of renewables globally.
However self-defeating the arguments against bitcoin mining in Norway, the political initiative is moving forward. What it means for Northern Bitcoin is not clear, as they house their containers in Lefdal’s mixed data center, which also has other clients, like IBM.
“It’s not really decided yet; there are still big efforts from IT sectors and parties who are trying to change it. If the decision is taken it might apply for pure crypto sites rather than mixed data centers, like ours,” said Lefdal’s Andersson.
Even in the worst-case scenario, it would mean an increase from ~5 cents to ~6.9 cents per kilowatt hour, or 30 percent more paid on the electricity by Northern Bitcoin, which at ~$3250 would still rank it among the most competitive producers in the world.
Coinshares estimates the average production price at $6,800 per Bitcoin at $0,05 per kilowatt hour of electricity and an 18-months depreciation schedule, but concedes that a profitable miner could “[depreciate] mining gear over 24-30 months, or [pay] less for mining gear than our estimates.”
Jäger says Northern Bitcoin depreciates the equipment over three years and has obtained very favorable prices from Bitmain, making its production much more competitive than the average despite the same cost of electricity. In addition, the natural cooling in the mine also reduces electricity costs overall.

Cheap Producer Advantage

At the moment, however, the tax could be the least of any miners worry, as the bitcoin price is in free-fall.
But what happens when the price crashes further? Suffice it to say that there was bitcoin mining when the dollar price was less than 1 cent and there will be bitcoin mining at lower prices thanks to the design of the network.
Mao Shixing, the founder of mining pool F2pool estimated 600,000 miners have shut down since the November crash in price, according to a report by Coindesk.
As it should be in a competitive system, the most energy intensive and obsolete machines are shut down first.
As with every other commodity, when the price drops, some miners will leave the market, leaving space for cheaper competitors to capture a bigger share. But with bitcoin this is a bit simpler than with copper or gold for example.
When a big copper player goes bankrupt, its competitors have to ramp up production and increase cost to increase their market share. With bitcoin, if 3,000 computers get taken off the total mining pool, they won’t be able to mine the approximately 5 bitcoin any longer.
However, because the difficulty of solving the computationally intensive cryptographic tasks of bitcoin decreases automatically when there are fewer computers engaged in the task, the other players just have to leave their machines running at the same rate for the same cost and they will split the 5 bitcoin among them.
“The moment the price goes down, our production price will go down as well,” said Jäger, a process that already happened from November to December when the difficulty decreased twice in November and the beginning of December.
This naturally favors players like Northern Bitcoin, which are producing at the lower end of the cost spectrum. They will be the ones who shut down last.
And this is a good thing. The more companies like Northern Bitcoin, and countries like Norway—even with the extra tax—the more decentralized the bitcoin system.
The more computers there are in different hands mining bitcoin, the more secure the system becomes, because it will be ever more difficult for one player to reach the 50 percent threshold to crash the system. It is this decentralized philosophy which has kept the bitcoin system running for 10 years. Whether at $1 or $20,000.
submitted by rotoreuters to zerohedge [link] [comments]

Antminer S9 - First month's mining profits - YouTube Gekkoscience NewPac - USB BTC Mining (100 GH/s + on ... Increase Bitcoin Mining Profits 2019 and AVOID ASIC ... Fastest Asic Litecoin Miner - $150 per day profit Bitcoin Earning - YouTube

Bitcoin Mining 100 GH/s für 10,99 USD. Bitcoin Cash Mining 100 GH/s für 17,29 USD. Ethereum Mining 1 MH/s für 13,89 USD; ZCASH Mining 20 H/s für 27,99 USD. Monero Mining 60 H/s für 46,99 USD. Litecoin Mining 2 MH/s für 25,99 USD. Verträge: 12 Monate oder Lifetime; 6) nicehash.com (Marktplatz) Der Mining Anbieter NiceHash ist ein Marktplatz für den Handel von Rechenleistung fürs Mining ... 10 Gh/s. 630 W. 65 db. 8 -$0.24 /day. Innosilicon A8 CryptoMaster. Apr 2018. 160 kh/s. 350 W. 70 db. CryptoNight -$0.24 /day. Bitmain Antminer X3 (220Kh) May 2018. 220 kh/s. 465 W. 76 db. CryptoNight-$0.29 /day. Baikal BK-N70. May 2018. 70 kh/s. 240 W. 62 db. 2 -$0.30 /day. Baikal BK-B. Jan 2018. 160 Gh/s. 410 W. 65 db. 5 -$0.39 /day. FFMiner Decred D18. Jun 2018. 340 Gh/s. 180 W. 55 db ... Calculate Bitcoin (BTC) mining profitability in realtime based on hashrate, power consumption and electricity cost. BTC exchange rates, mining pools. BTC exchange rates, mining pools. $12,976.61 $62.75 $412.92 $126.63 $5.37 $72.44 $55.67 Follow @WhatToMine dark mode There is no other worldwide financial market that can guarantee a daily ability to generate constant profit with the large price swings of Bitcoin. Proposed modalities for strengthening cooperation will be accepted by anyone who uses cryptocurrency and knows about its fantastic prospects. Your deposit is working on an ongoing basis, and makes profit every day with the ability to withdraw ... BTCProMiner is Bitcoin miner with fully automatic process. Start earning Bitcoin now!

[index] [46413] [37865] [5714] [7129] [10214] [40377] [49663] [17263] [7708] [8905]

Antminer S9 - First month's mining profits - YouTube

Bitcoin Earning Videos; Playlists; Channels; Discussion; About; Home Trending History Get YouTube Premium Get YouTube TV Best of YouTube Music Sports Gaming ... Free Bitcoin Mining Site 🔥 Live Payment Proof 💯 ⭐⭐Earn Bitcoin from Trusted Paying Site 2020 💯 - Duration: 1:52. Technical Abdul Rehman Abbasi 3,077 views 1:52 New video every Tuesday! Today we are taking a look at the Gekkoscience NewPac USB miner. We'll check all the hardware you need for setting it up, discuss so... Download Link : https://goo.gl/o42LqH VT:https://goo.gl/OAGheH bitcoin mining, bitcoin price, bitcoin billionaire, bitcoin mining 2016, bitcoin wallet, bitcoin news ... Free Bitcoin 0.8 Free 100 gh/s Power New Mining Site No Investment Join Site Link : http://1ink.cc/pFbR Wel Come Frindes on GR FAST channel We are Providing ...

#