How to Make One Bitcoin From Home - Crypto Mining Blog

Multi apartment clustered cryptocurrency mining rig

So you’ve probably just heard all your classes are online. And now you’re trying to sublet your apartment but no one’s gonna take it. So now you’re gonna be paying at least $1000/month for an empty apartment. I have a proposal that can reduce that cost and possibly turn a profit.
Firstly, we have a very high risk credit market on our hands. The Federal Reserve has been pumping money into the economy and at some point the US dollar will have to inflate while growth stagnates (aka stagflation). During stagflationary periods in the past the price of non-fiat currencies like gold or silver has skyrocketed. Recently cryptocurrencies have emerged with the same general economic properties of such commodities. Therefore we may see an increase in their values as the Fed keeps pumping more money into the economy.
As of now in order to generate enough money per month to pay off rent in South Campus Commons, each apartment would need a Bitcoin rig capable of generating ~2200 TH/s (since you don’t pay for electricity). For the Varsity and View this might have to be higher considering the cost of electricity. This is definitely possible with new ASIC chips that are solely built for the purpose of running Bitcoin hashing algorithms. For other cryptocurrencies (Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin), these rates may be different. But like any good portfolio manager, diversifying our investments will ensure we have a profitable outcome.
If enough students come together to construct a Bitcoin mining rig in their apartments we could essentially create a multi apartment clustered miner to be able to generate Bitcoin. On top of that, because campus server resources will be diminished due to online classes, we can in turn utilize that computing power to help mine such cryptocurrencies. As a result we won’t have to find people to sublet our apartments to and won’t have to worry about the financial undertakings associated with it.
TL;DR: Corona collectively fucked everyone in the ass and we should build a massive Bitcoin rig to pay off our rent.
submitted by terpetrator251 to UMD [link] [comments]

Mining bitcoin in college (free electricity!)

I am working with a friend to set up a bitcoin mining rig our university. I'm a business major, but my friend is in engineering and has unlimited free access to a 220v power supply. Would it be worth buying 100 AntMiner S9's on eBay and making our own rig?
The math breaks down as follows according to https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/calculatobtc?HashingPower=1350&HashingUnit=TH%2Fs&PowerConsumption=137500&CostPerkWh=0&MiningPoolFee=1
1350 TH/s hashrate (with 100 S9s at 13.5 TH/s for each unit)
Electricity cost is zero.
Predicted payout is $3,390/month.
Am I missing something? It seems too good to be true, making 4k/month with only 10k up front.

EDIT: Assume the rig was well hidden and not discovered for a few years.
submitted by josiahkitching to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Iranian Authorizes Issue License for 6000-Rig Crypto Farm

Iranian Authorizes Issue License for 6000-Rig Crypto Farm
Iranian Authorizes Issue License for 6000-Rig Crypto Farm Turkey-based company has invested nearly $7.3 million into a Bitcoin (BTC) mining farm in the Semnan Province of Iran, where it will mine digital currency with 6,000 rigs capable of 96,000 terahashes per second (TH/s) in total.
https://preview.redd.it/zdv6wlfd8qw41.jpg?width=1003&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e999b7b3b4e82f156f9609ed632cd23288dc944
submitted by IndianCrypto to u/IndianCrypto [link] [comments]

Antminer T19 May Not Affect Bitcoin Hash Rate but Keeps Bitmain Ahead

The Antminer T19 by Bitmain may not have a big impact on the Bitcoin network, and it comes out amid the firm’s internal and post-halving uncertainty.
Earlier this week, Chinese mining-hardware juggernaut Bitmain unveiled its new product, an application-specific integrated circuit called Antminer T19. The Bitcoin (BTC) mining unit is the latest to join the new generation of ASICs — state-of-the-art devices designed to mitigate increased mining difficulty by maximizing the terahashes-per-second output.
The Antminer T19 announcement comes amid the post-halving uncertainty and follows the company’s recent problems with its S17 units. So, can this new machine help Bitmain to reinforce its somewhat hobbled position in the mining sector?
T19: The cheaper S19
According to the official announcement, the Antminer T19 features a mining speed of 84 TH/s and a power efficiency of 37.5 joules per TH. The chips used in the new device are the same as those equipped in the Antminer S19 and S19 Pro, though it uses the new APW12 version of the power supply system that allows the device to start up faster.
Bitmain usually markets its Antminer T devices as the most cost-effective ones, while the S-series models are presented as the top of the line in terms of productivity for their respective generation, Johnson Xu — the head of research and analytics at Tokensight — explained to Cointelegraph. According to data from F2Pool, one of the largest Bitcoin mining pools, Antminer T19s can generate $3.97 of profit each day, while Antminer S19s and Antminer S19 Pros can earn $4.86 and $6.24, respectively, based on an average electricity cost of $0.05 per kilowatt-hour.
Antminer T19s, which consume 3,150 watts, are being sold for $1,749 per unit. Antminer S19 machines, on the other hand, cost $1,785 and consume 3,250 watts. Antminer S19 Pro devices, the most efficient of three, are considerably more expensive and go for $2,407. The reason Bitmain is producing another model for the 19 series is due to what is known as "binning" chips, Marc Fresa — the founder of mining firmware company Asic.to — explained to Cointelegraph:
“When chips are designed they are meant to achieve specific performance levels. Chips that fail to hit their target numbers, such as not achieving the power standards or their thermal output, are often ‘Binned.’ Instead of throwing these chips in the garbage bin, these chips are resold into another unit with a lower performance level. In the case of Bitmain S19 chips that don’t make the cutoff are then sold in the T19 for cheaper since they do not perform as well as the counterpart.” The rollout of a new model “has nothing to do with the fact that machines are not selling well,” Fresa went on to argue, citing the post-halving uncertainty: “The biggest reason machines probably are not selling as well as manufacturers would like is because we are on a bit of a tipping point; The halving just happened, the price can go anyway and the difficulty is continuing to drop.” Product diversification is a common strategy for mining hardware producers, given that customers tend to aim for different specifications, Kristy-Leigh Minehan, a consultant and the former chief technology officer of Genesis Mining, told Cointelegraph:
“ASICs don’t really allow for one model as consumers expect a certain performance level from a machine, and unfortunately silicon is not a perfect process — many times you’ll get a batch that performs better or worse than projected due to the nature of the materials. Thus, you end up with 5–10 different model numbers.” It is not yet clear how efficient the 19-series devices are because they have not shipped at scale, as Leo Zhang, the founder of Anicca Research, summed up in a conversation with Cointelegraph. The first batch of S19 units reportedly shipped out around May 12, while the T19 shipments will start between June 21 and June 30. It is also worth noting that, at this time, Bitmain only sells up to two T19 miners per user “to prevent hoarding.”
Hardware problems and competitors
The latest generation of Bitmain ASICs follows the release of the S17 units, which have received mostly mixed-to-negative reviews in the community. In early May, Arseniy Grusha, the co-founder of crypto consulting and mining firm Wattum, created a Telegram group for consumers unsatisfied with the S17 units they purchased from Bitmain. As Grusha explained to Cointelegraph at the time, out of the 420 Antminer S17+ devices his company bought, roughly 30%, or around 130 machines, turned out to be bad units.
Similarly, Samson Mow, the chief strategy officer of blockchain infrastructure firm Blockstream, tweeted earlier in April that Bitmain customers have a 20%–30% failure rate with Antminer S17 and T17 units. “The Antminer 17 series is generally considered not great,” added Zhang. He additionally noted that Chinese hardware company and competitor Micro BT has been stepping on Bitmain’s toes lately with the release of its highly productive M30 series, which prompted Bitmain to step up its efforts:
“Whatsminer gained significant market share in the past two years. According to their COO, in 2019 MicroBT sold ~35% of the network hashrate. Needless to say Bitmain is under a lot of pressure both from competitors and internal politics. They have been working on the 19 series for a while. The specs and price look very attractive.” Minehan confirmed that MicroBT has been gaining traction on the market, but refrained from saying that Bitmain is losing market share as a result: “I think MicroBT is offering option and bringing in new participants, and giving farms a choice. Most farms will have both Bitmain and MicroBT side by side, rather than exclusively host one manufacturer.”
“I would say that MicroBT has taken up the existing market share that Canaan has left,” she added, referring to another China-based mining player that recently reported a net loss of $5.6 million in the first quarter of 2020 and cut the price of its mining hardware by up to 50%.
Indeed, some large-scale operations seem to be diversifying their equipment with MicroBT units. Earlier this week, United States mining firm Marathon Patent Group announced that it had installed 700 Whatsminer M30S+ ASICs produced by MicroBT. However, it is also reportedly waiting for a delivery of 1,160 Antminer S19 Pro units produced by Bitmain, meaning that it also remains loyal to the current market leader.
Will the hash rate be affected?
Bitcoin’s hash rate plummeted 30% soon after the halving occurred as much of the older generation equipment became unprofitable due to the increased mining difficulty. That spurred miners to reshuffle, upgrading their current rigs and selling older machines to places where electricity is cheaper — meaning that some of them had to temporarily unplug.
The situation has stabilized since, with the hash rate fluctuating around 100 TH/s for the past few days. Some experts attribute that to the start of the wet season in Sichuan, a southwest Chinese province where miners take advantage of low hydroelectricity prices between May and October.
The arrival of the new generation of ASICs is expected to drive the hash rate even higher, at least once upgraded units become widely available. So, will the newly revealed T19 model make any impact on the state of the network?
Experts agree that it won’t affect the hash rate to a major degree, as it’s a lower output model compared with the S19 series and MicroBT’s M30 series. Minehan said she doesn’t expect the T19 model “to have a huge impact that’s an immediate cause of concern,” as “most likely this is a run of <3500 units of a particular bin quality.” Similarly, Mark D’Aria, the CEO of crypto consulting firm Bitpro, told Cointelegraph:
“There isn’t a strong reason to expect the new model to significantly affect the hashrate. It might be a slightly more compelling option to a miner with extraordinarily inexpensive electricity, but otherwise they likely would have just purchased an S19 instead.” Bitmain continues to hold leadership despite internal struggle
At the end of the day, manufacturers are always in an arms race, and mining machines are simply commodity products, Zhang argued in a conversation with Cointelegraph:
“Besides price, performance, and failure rate, there are not many factors that can help a manufacturer differentiate from the others. The relentless competition led to where we are today.” According to Zhang, as the iteration rate naturally slows down in the future, there will be more facilities using “creative thermal design such as immersion cooling,” hoping to maximize the mining efficiency beyond just using most powerful machines.
As for now, Bitmain remains the leader of the mining race, despite having to deal with the largely defunct 17 series and an intensifying power struggle between its two co-founders, Jihan Wu and Micree Zhan, which recently resulted in reports of a street brawl.
“Due to its recent internal issues, Bitmain is facing challenges to keep its strong position in the future thus they started to look at other things to expand its industry influences,” Xu told Cointelegraph. He added that Bitmain “will still dominate the industry position in the near future due to its network effect,” although its current problems might allow competitors such as MicroBT to catch up.
Earlier this week, the power struggle inside Bitmain intensified even further as Micree Zhan, an ousted executive of the mining titan, reportedly led a group of private guards to overtake the company’s office in Beijing.
Meanwhile, Bitmain continues to expand its operations. Last week, the mining company revealed it was extending its “Ant Training Academy” certification program to North America, with the first courses set to launch in the fall. As such, Bitmain seems to be doubling down on the U.S.-based mining sector, which has been growing recently. The Beijing-based company already operates what it classifies as “the world’s largest” mining facility in Rockdale, Texas, which has a planned capacity of 50 megawatts that can later be expanded to 300 megawatts.
submitted by melissaBrian0 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Triple Increase On BTC Transaction Fees Just Before Bitcoin`s Third Halving

Triple Increase On BTC Transaction Fees Just Before Bitcoin`s Third Halving

The Average Price Per Bitcoin Transaction Reached $3,19 On 8th May, After Increasing With 300% From $0,62 Per BTC Transaction, As Of 26th April
The world of cryptocurrencies is franticly preparing for Bitcoin’s third halving event, which would cut down the reward that miners receive for validating transactions.
Historically, prior to a halving event, transaction fees skyrocket. The last halving resulted in peak transaction fee of $0,62, with transactions costing a mere $0,10 just weeks before.
Source: Bitinfocharts
However, the halving event means something more than just transaction fees increase. Bitcoin suffered from increased volatility over the past weekend, with prices swinging from close to $9,700 on May 10, to shrink as low as $8,466 on May 11. Nevertheless, Bitcoin’s price is still 40% up year-to-date (YTD), which implies strong support from Bitcoin bulls. The price swing outperforms serious investment assets like gold (XAU) and U.S. dollars.
Speculators expect the halving event to boost Bitcoin’s price, as the price inflation reduces when the reward for mining a Bitcoin block reduces in half. Тhe primary reason behind both Bitcoin’s price increase and inflation reduction is a term, called scarcity. Scarcity resembles how rare to obtain a given asset is. Meantime, Bitcoin’s user base is exponentially increasing. The current 1,800 BTC-per-day premium would be reduced to 900 BTC per day.
Joe Llisteri, the co-founder of crypto derivatives exchange Interdax, stated that over time, the reduction of BTC supply would ultimately lead to a reduction in sell pressure. “The factors add up to an increase in upwards momentum for Bitcoin’s price.”, Llisteri added.
Llisteri also noted that this time Bitcoin’s upwards momentum may see a slower effect, due to progressively longer life cycles for Bitcoin after a halving event. “Currently, we are looking at 18-24 months until a possible all-time high. Timewise, Bitcoin may reach an all-time high between October-November 2021 and May-June 2022.”, Llisteri concluded.
However, small and medium-sized miners may take a serious hit, as the price reward cut may mitigate all possible earnings from small mining enthusiasts and mid-sized mining rigs. Even with the much-anticipated Bitcoin price boost, much of the miners may shut down operations prior to the price increase.
Speaking of mining, Bitcoin’s hash rate continues to keep a steady growth, slightly declining from its yearly high of 123.2 terra hash-per-second (TH/s). There are two possible scenarios – either more miners are joining the Bitcoin network, or current miners are driving their existing rigs to a maximum.
submitted by Crypto_Browser to CryptoBrowser_EN [link] [comments]

Ukraine Diverts Free Nuclear Plant Power For Transaction Processing Operations

Ukraine Diverts Free Nuclear Plant Power For Transaction Processing Operations

Ukraine’s Nuclear Power Plants Are Storing Electricity Surplus Due To The Lower Amounts Of Power Consumption
As the crypto world prepares for the third Bitcoin halving, the Ukrainian Ministry of Energy and Environment (MEE) proposed the excess electrical power generated from the power plants to be relocated into processing transactions.
Currently, Ukraine has dropped its power consumption drastically, as many businesses are shutting down operations due to the COVID-19 virus outbreak. The MEE suggested transaction processing as a “perfect tool for using leftover electricity, as well as economic and social development.”
“Having such excess means we can direct it to various sectors like cryptocurrencies. This way, we would keep the minimal loads on the nuclear power plants, as well as grant the chance of crypto-oriented businesses to receive fresh funds from transaction processing. Also, by directing the power into transaction processing, we are creating an entirely new approach to the world of cryptocurrencies and digital economies,” the Ministry stated.
The problem with excess electricity occurs because Ukrainian nuclear power plants have to produce a guaranteed minimum of electricity each month. However, due to widespread energy-consuming businesses shutdowns, the quantity of electric power remains unused. The current power cost per Kilowatt of electricity in Ukraine is around $75/MWh.
The news comes amid more countries opening their doors to digital currency transaction processing companies. Recently, the Iranian government gave the “thumbs up” and licensed Turkish transaction processing company iMiner. The license means iMiner would become the largest crypto transaction processor in Iran. iMiner’s license also covers trading and custodial services. The Turkish payment processor is going to facilitate a $7,3 million investment into the mining farm. The farm itself is expected to be able to work with a maximum load of 96,000 terra hash per second (TH/s). Over 6,000 machines would do the computing power. In 2019 alone, the Iranian government gave over 1,000 licenses to both individuals and companies, which process transactions with a reported 148,000 ASIC-based mining rigs.
Furthermore, governments, which are usually harder to adopt new technologies, seem to find the benefits of granting transaction processors to works, are now focusing on creating the foundations of their digital economies. Iran, for example, needs a digital economy if a new war conflict with the U.S. arises. Ukraine also sees its geopolitical dependence from Russia and seeks alternative funding routes.
submitted by Crypto_Browser to CryptoBrowser_EN [link] [comments]

Zigmabit fastest and most efficient crypto miners 🔴 SCAM 🔴

Zigmabit fastest and most efficient crypto miners 🔴 SCAM 🔴
https://preview.redd.it/wk4gh9rm3cb41.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=db173c6ddb6d51581b6e1f638c0a0465df8f5020
We are not even in a bull market yet. Usually these things happen when there is a lot of hype. ZigmaBit is scammer company with fake mining rigs to basically scam you. Their selling website is https://zigmabit.com/ , please don't even click the link. We do not want to give them any traffic, just watch the video down below.
They have listed 3 miners on their website:
  • ZigBit 2.0
  • ZigBit 3.0
  • ZigBit 5.0

https://preview.redd.it/406xtn2l3cb41.jpg?width=1676&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4933fa05a303be6ece49fa37c4e8845fa8636605
Which of course doesn't exist. They recommend that these miners will make some crazy gains, which of course will not happen. As these miners are fake. Seeing the specification makes me think these guys know very little about crypto currency mining. So for example the specification they are advertising on ZigBit 5.0 is :
  • Bitcoin-2000 TH/s
  • Litecoin-300 GH/s
  • Ethereum-75 GH/s
  • Dash-50 TH/s
  • Power Consumption-2400W
  • Power Socket 110V-240V
Now you understand what im talking about, seriously 2000 TH/s mining Bitcoin at 2400w (where the latest Antminer S17 is 72Th/s), or mining ETH and the profit is so big that it will cover the miner cost faster then month. And another thing, they using the same hardware to mine multiple currencies which every one of them needs different hardware. Worst thing is that people will loose money, and most likely some of them already did. People think they will get rich after buying this miner, which they will never receive. Their fake products look so bad, their cheapest version ZiBit 2.0 looks like an ATX power supply.

https://preview.redd.it/sj7oslyl3cb41.jpg?width=1606&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=470d5ceb04049cb3b617eb3fa1294e414def0b90
Few things to also note is :
  • They have support chat on their website. I did send them a message and got response after about 20 minutes. So they told me that they only accept crypto currency, and the products are shipped from United Kingdom. My last line of the chat was "im coming for you you'll be in jail soon ".
  • When you google miner name, there is few websites coming up describing how great is their product. This most likely is owned websites for this scammer or this is purchased content posts.
  • Last thing is that i tired to do checkout on one miner, there is btc address which has already received 7btc. Im not sure if this is some people got already scammed or this is fake volume, hope this is fake volume https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1C4RSshoK9veR4jCNStqF32QARS5oGnmzw . Hope none is scammed.
Sad to see that there is such kind of people who makes money on scamming others. Man karma is there , i believe it will come for you sooner or later.
video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Bc7\_hNk4o&feature=youtu.be
submitted by mineshop to gpumining [link] [comments]

Burstcoin Is A Robust And Unique Cryptocurrency: Proof of Capacity (PoC) Ensures Decentralization, Energy Efficiency, And Low Barrier To Entry

http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/burstcoin-is-a-robust-and-unique-cryptocurrency-proof-of-capacity-poc-ensures-decentralization-energy-efficiency-and-low-barrier-to-entry/
Decentralization is perhaps the fundamental reason why Bitcoin has been successful. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, its network cannot be controlled by any government, corporation, or other centralized entity, and this is why Bitcoin still exists to this day rather than being shutdown a long time ago. Bitcoin achieves decentralization through its Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm, where miners around the world cryptographically hash transactions into blocks and receive block rewards for their efforts, and nodes constantly check to ensure that all confirmed transactions are following consensus rules.
The major caveat with PoW is it is energy intensive. This has especially become a problem due to the rapid rise in Bitcoin’s price long term, which has resulted in an arms race of sorts to amass the most hashing power in order to obtain the most mining profits. Indeed, the Bitcoin hash rate has risen orders of magnitude, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now up to its all-time high so far of 84 EH/s. This represents exponentially more computing resources and energy consumption.
This is a problem for two reasons. First off, there is a very high barrier to entry for new users to mine Bitcoin. It requires thousands of dollars of mining equipment to make any worthwhile profit from mining Bitcoin.
Secondly, Bitcoin mining consumes a massive amount of energy worldwide. It is estimated by Digiconomist that Bitcoin mining uses 73.12 TWh of energy annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire country of Austria, or 0.33% of total global electricity consumption. This releases nearly 35 Megatons of Carbon Dioxide annually, contributing to global warming, aside from other environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels and manufacturing mining equipment. Digiconomist may be an overestimate of Bitcoin’s environmental impact, but it is somewhere in the ballpark.
Numerous alternative cryptocurrencies have tried to be environmentally friendly via using the Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm, but this sacrifices decentralization, since all the voting rights end up concentrated into the hands of developers and major bag holders.
This is where Proof of Capacity (PoC), formerly called Proof of Space, comes in. Instead of using specialized Bitcoin mining equipment, PoC simply uses hard drive space to mine cryptocurrency. Burstcoin (BURST) is the #1 PoC cryptocurrency. Bitcoin HD (BHD) is another PoC cryptocurrency, but it has a highly centralized supply with 3.1 million out of 5 million total coins in the hands of the developers, so it is nonsensical to choose BHD considering that BURST has a highly decentralized supply. The problem with a centralized supply is it can cause a coin’s value to collapse long term due to developers dumping on the market.
In order to start mining BURST, a user simply allocates part of their hard drive, and this area of hard drive is plotted. Plotting is a 1-time hashing cycle where the hard drive is filled with cryptographic hashes via the Shabal cryptographic algorithm. The node also has to synchronize with the BURST blockchain before mining. Fortunately, the BURST blockchain is less than 9 GB, versus the Bitcoin blockchain which is nearly 240 GB.
Once plotting and synchronization is complete the user can begin mining. During each mining round the plot file is searched to find the correct cryptographic hash for the block, and when the correct hash is found the user receives a block reward. Essentially, the hashes in the plot file can be thought of as lottery tickets, and the bigger the size of the plot, meaning the more hard drive space dedicated to mining BURST, the more likely it is to find the correct hash.
Like with Bitcoin mining, users can join pools so that even if they have a small amount of hard drive space they can still earn BURST at a steady pace.
Since BURST’s PoC algorithm simply reads a hard drive versus the intense computational work of Bitcoin’s PoW, BURST mining uses a negligible amount of electricity. It is estimated that each BURST transaction consumes 0.0024 KWh of electricity, versus about 1,000 KWh used for each Bitcoin transaction.
Aside from being far more environmentally friendly, electricity costs are negligible for BURST miners, so BURST miners earn nearly 100% profit. This opens the door for users with any level of technology to profitably mine BURST, including personal computers and technically even cell phones. Compare this to Bitcoin where mining with even a powerful personal computer is impossible.
Ultimately, BURST’s energy efficiency makes the barrier to entry very low, a user simply needs to have hard drive space to mine BURST. This results in the BURST network being highly decentralized.
Notably, miners do not have to buy any special equipment to mine BURST, they just use spare hard drive space that was sitting unused, versus Bitcoin mining where specialized hardware that costs thousands of dollars is required. Bitcoin mining rigs often become obsolete with time, and also have no other use besides Bitcoin mining, whereas hard drive space used for BURST mining never becomes obsolete and can easily be freed up and used for storage by deleting the plot file.
In summary, BURST is one of the most unique and fundamentally robust cryptocurrencies due to its PoC algorithm, which ensures decentralization while simultaneously guaranteeing energy efficiency and a low barrier for miner entry.
submitted by turtlecane to burstcoin [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]

Burstcoin Is A Robust And Unique Cryptocurrency: Proof of Capacity (PoC) Ensures Decentralization, Energy Efficiency, And Low Barrier To Entry

http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/burstcoin-is-a-robust-and-unique-cryptocurrency-proof-of-capacity-poc-ensures-decentralization-energy-efficiency-and-low-barrier-to-entry/
Decentralization is perhaps the fundamental reason why Bitcoin has been successful. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, its network cannot be controlled by any government, corporation, or other centralized entity, and this is why Bitcoin still exists to this day rather than being shutdown a long time ago. Bitcoin achieves decentralization through its Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm, where miners around the world cryptographically hash transactions into blocks and receive block rewards for their efforts, and nodes constantly check to ensure that all confirmed transactions are following consensus rules.
The major caveat with PoW is it is energy intensive. This has especially become a problem due to the rapid rise in Bitcoin’s price long term, which has resulted in an arms race of sorts to amass the most hashing power in order to obtain the most mining profits. Indeed, the Bitcoin hash rate has risen orders of magnitude, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now up to its all-time high so far of 84 EH/s. This represents exponentially more computing resources and energy consumption.
This is a problem for two reasons. First off, there is a very high barrier to entry for new users to mine Bitcoin. It requires thousands of dollars of mining equipment to make any worthwhile profit from mining Bitcoin.
Secondly, Bitcoin mining consumes a massive amount of energy worldwide. It is estimated by Digiconomist that Bitcoin mining uses 73.12 TWh of energy annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire country of Austria, or 0.33% of total global electricity consumption. This releases nearly 35 Megatons of Carbon Dioxide annually, contributing to global warming, aside from other environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels and manufacturing mining equipment. Digiconomist may be an overestimate of Bitcoin’s environmental impact, but it is somewhere in the ballpark.
Numerous alternative cryptocurrencies have tried to be environmentally friendly via using the Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm, but this sacrifices decentralization, since all the voting rights end up concentrated into the hands of developers and major bag holders.
This is where Proof of Capacity (PoC), formerly called Proof of Space, comes in. Instead of using specialized Bitcoin mining equipment, PoC simply uses hard drive space to mine cryptocurrency. Burstcoin (BURST) is the #1 PoC cryptocurrency. Bitcoin HD (BHD) is another PoC cryptocurrency, but it has a highly centralized supply with 3.1 million out of 5 million total coins in the hands of the developers, so it is nonsensical to choose BHD considering that BURST has a highly decentralized supply. The problem with a centralized supply is it can cause a coin’s value to collapse long term due to developers dumping on the market.
In order to start mining BURST, a user simply allocates part of their hard drive, and this area of hard drive is plotted. Plotting is a 1-time hashing cycle where the hard drive is filled with cryptographic hashes via the Shabal cryptographic algorithm. The node also has to synchronize with the BURST blockchain before mining. Fortunately, the BURST blockchain is less than 9 GB, versus the Bitcoin blockchain which is nearly 240 GB.
Once plotting and synchronization is complete the user can begin mining. During each mining round the plot file is searched to find the correct cryptographic hash for the block, and when the correct hash is found the user receives a block reward. Essentially, the hashes in the plot file can be thought of as lottery tickets, and the bigger the size of the plot, meaning the more hard drive space dedicated to mining BURST, the more likely it is to find the correct hash.
Like with Bitcoin mining, users can join pools so that even if they have a small amount of hard drive space they can still earn BURST at a steady pace.
Since BURST’s PoC algorithm simply reads a hard drive versus the intense computational work of Bitcoin’s PoW, BURST mining uses a negligible amount of electricity. It is estimated that each BURST transaction consumes 0.0024 KWh of electricity, versus about 1,000 KWh used for each Bitcoin transaction.
Aside from being far more environmentally friendly, electricity costs are negligible for BURST miners, so BURST miners earn nearly 100% profit. This opens the door for users with any level of technology to profitably mine BURST, including personal computers and technically even cell phones. Compare this to Bitcoin where mining with even a powerful personal computer is impossible.
Ultimately, BURST’s energy efficiency makes the barrier to entry very low, a user simply needs to have hard drive space to mine BURST. This results in the BURST network being highly decentralized.
Notably, miners do not have to buy any special equipment to mine BURST, they just use spare hard drive space that was sitting unused, versus Bitcoin mining where specialized hardware that costs thousands of dollars is required. Bitcoin mining rigs often become obsolete with time, and also have no other use besides Bitcoin mining, whereas hard drive space used for BURST mining never becomes obsolete and can easily be freed up and used for storage by deleting the plot file.
In summary, BURST is one of the most unique and fundamentally robust cryptocurrencies due to its PoC algorithm, which ensures decentralization while simultaneously guaranteeing energy efficiency and a low barrier for miner entry.
submitted by turtlecane to burst [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Hash Rate Plummets To 35 EH/s, Increasing Centralization Of Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin Mining Hash Rate Plummets To 35 EH/s, Increasing Centralization Of Bitcoin Mining

https://preview.redd.it/7qe13wsg3yz11.jpg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cdb3cb372c118e1bde3b75332739ab61ca868e21
http://genesisblocknews.com/bitcoin-mining-hash-rate-plummets-to-35-eh-s-increasing-centralization-of-bitcoin-mining/
The Bitcoin mining hash rate had been exponentially increasing from 2009 through August 2018, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now EH/s. The all-time record high for Bitcoin’s mining hash rate was 62 EH/s on 26 August 2018.
After that point the trend broke, and Bitcoin’s mining hash rate plateaued. This was due to a combination of two factors. First, the Bitcoin bear market brought Bitcoin’s price down from USD 20,000 to about USD 6,500, making mining much less profitable. Second, Bitcoin’s mining difficulty had been rapidly rising despite the bear market, as all the new hash power came online. The end result was there was no more room to profitably add hashing power to the Bitcoin network.
It was thought that Bitcoin’s support level was solidly at USD 5,800, but that paradigm broke when Bitcoin Cash forked, the Securities and Exchange Commission began to launch catastrophic civil penalties against initial coin offerings (ICOs), and the launch of physical Bitcoin futures on Bakkt was delayed. This trifecta of extremely bad news within 1 week has brought Bitcoin’s price down to USD 4,400.
This unexpected crash in Bitcoin’s price has been destructive for the mining industry. Many mining farms were right at the break even point, or perhaps even losing some money, but expecting Bitcoin to go up in the near future so they kept mining. Now Bitcoin’s hash rate has plummeted to 35 EH/s, implicitly indicating about 25 EH/s of Bitcoin mining rigs have been taken offline since they are no longer profitable due to electricity costs.
This represents billions of USD of Bitcoin mining equipment going to complete waste, since Bitcoin mining rigs have no real use besides mining Bitcoin. The events unfolding in the Bitcoin mining space could spell doom for mining rig manufacturers. Now the market for rigs is completely over-saturated, and any demand for rigs has probably dried up. Mining rig manufacturers could perhaps rectify this by rapidly developing cutting-edge technology, like what Bitmain did when they recently released 7 nm rigs.
Speaking of Bitmain, no matter how good their technology is, unless Bitcoin’s price rises soon they are going to experience their lowest sales numbers in history. There is a chance this will throttle their attempt at an initial public offering (IPO) on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, and if that IPO falls apart that will send more shockwaves through the crypto space.
On a final note, Bitcoin mining supersites that cost hundreds of millions of USD have been popping up across the globe recently, and these have been forcing personal miners out of business, since the supersites are far more cost effective per unit of hash rate. The crash in Bitcoin’s mining hash rate we are seeing right now could very possibly be individual miners collectively shutting down their rigs, leaving just the supersites. This could drastically increase the centralization of the Bitcoin mining network, and therefore increase the centralization of Bitcoin itself.
GenesisBlockNews believes it is a dangerous trend for Bitcoin’s hash rate to increasingly be in the control of a select few corporations.
submitted by turtlecane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

MINEDBLOCK: PROVIDING ABILITY OF INDIVIDUALS TO OWN A PART OF BUSINESS ENTITIES LEVERAGING ON BLOCKCHAIN

Minedblock is making possible individuals ability to claim some part of the business entity that possesses and works everything. Making it more explicit, this isn't a work direction leases out minin rigs for long time, or another service provider merchandizing mining contracts prevalent with beginner home miners. Th Minedblock coin is basically not the conventional coin but something much more than that, because the path that states that people can own a little bit of the company is altruistic.
In what might be our preferred use-instance of a safely guarded coin up until now, Minedblock's coins will likewise legitimately qualifies the coin holder for a bit of possession in the organization itself. Minedblock is the first to utilize the safely guarded coin model to finance a cryptographic money mining task and the first to record with the SEC, which is discovered evidenced here. Coin holders are given a slice of bibviously at the begining of every month, paid in ETH for the time being, however the organization says they'll have a few payout choices later on. The coin itself, the MinedBlock 'MBTX' is a ST-20 coin based on PolyMath architecture, which is based on the Ethereum blockchain.
Basically, the Minedblock group will be standing in the gap because they know mining isn't a hazard free business – Fortunately, the Minedblock group appears to have been taking notes on what has and hasn't worked for other people. The biggest cost obviously – power. To bring down that cost they've picked Iceland as the primary area, which has been reliably been attracting moners with their minimal effort power. They're additionally not simply mining Bitcoin, they'll go wherever the most noteworthy benefits are. You can partake immediately in light of the fact that the coin deal has quite recently started!
They've officially earned some noteworthy assessment scores from ICOBench with a 4.3(out of 5.0), just as 9 (out of 10) on ICOMarks.
For more information : https://www.minedblock.io/
White paper: https://www.minedblock.io/assets/MinedBlockWhitepaper.pdf
Bounty0x Username : Jannyh
submitted by anderhart to ICOAnalysis [link] [comments]

Some rational thinking (and numbers) on ASICs/Dedicated Hardware

The current ETH price is bad - we can all clearly see that, having dropped to almost 25% of ATH. So over that period of time miners have lost 75% of their profits + the difficulty increases.
The current difficulty HAS started slowing/plateauing. Just zoom in on that etherscan.io graph for Oct-Present and that is obvious.
Current difficulty is 265 TH/s or so. That’s about 10 MILLION GPUs @ 26 MH average.
The looming fear has been this idea that Dedicated hardware (regardless of ASIC/FPGA/Custom GPUs) are going to completely destroy mining in the near term. I’m here to loudly say that’s a bunch of FUD. Here is my reasoning.
  1. The rumors peg F3 hashrates between 250 and 600 MH for $3000-$6000. $3000-7500 would get you about the same range with commodity GPUs (if you bargain shop and are efficient building rigs). Initial cost is maybe a 10-20% advantage. Those buying used cards get that deal now.
  2. Power usage rumored are 750w or so. Commodity rig with the same GPU power 1200-2400W. So maybe 3x power advantage / operating cost. At $0.10/kW that amounts to $120/mo of savings in the best case, and the 600 MH is currently worth $520 or so at these depressed prices. So you make 23% more.
  3. Next gen GPUs using GDDR6 will almost certainly double hashrates. Without going into the details, it is sufficient to say GDDR6 will double memory bandwidth for all classes of GPUs using it and thus will almost certainly double hashrate for the same power. A major memory change like this hasn’t happened in more than 5 years. Mining has basically never seen it. This should narrow or eliminate any dedicated hardware gap, even if it doesn’t help current card investments... but those are still pretty safe, see #4.
  4. ASIC/Dedicated production is super unlikely to make any significant dent in difficulty for a while. Let’s say the batch size is an extremely aggressive 5,000 units a week, each producing the output of 20 typical GPUs. That’s the same as 100,000 GPUs being introduced a week - but that would only be a 1.1% difficulty increase per week. It would take two years of ASICs for difficulty to double and your $520/mo to drop to $260 - assuming ETH price remained constant. Meanwhile over 4 million GPUs came online between December and January - Thats 10x more new GPU miners per week than Bitmain production could have supported brining online.
You aren’t competing against ASICs. You’re competing against price, which is partially dropping due to all this FUD and uncertainty about ASICs, and you are competing with the millions of get rich quick miners that started, with their GPUs, this spring.
For reference bitcoin ASICs, and other not-ASIC resistant algorithms compete with ASIC systems that are 1-100 orders of magnitude faster for cost/power than the GPU miners. That is NOT the case here, we’re looking at 20-30% savings and only till the next gen of GPUs, and this is why ETH has met its project goal of being ASIC resistant - which does not mean it is impossible to build dedicated hardware to mine ETH, it simply means that such hardware won’t change the landscape.
Bitcoin was also much smaller than ETH in terms of number of GPUs mining when ASICs were introduced, which is why a relatively low volume of ASIC production that were orders of magnitude better than GPUs resulted in such a disruption to Bitcoin mining. The same holds true of the much smaller coins that were being dual mined.
In summary - you are losing profits because of FUD and market shifts lowering price, and that will continue to be why you’re losing money - not ASICs or dedicated hardware. The sooner the community stops running around like chickens with their heads cut off and realigns with focusing on the goals for Ethereum itself, the sooner the situation and price will stabilize. Besides, POS is always coming eventually...
submitted by GPUHoarder to EtherMining [link] [comments]

0xBitcoin General - Weeks 45 and 46, 2018

A lot has happened in the past few weeks, and this time I actually paid enough attention to write it down.

Some general stats (and changes since last time):
Mining difficulty: 818,109,875 (0.00%) (next: ~800,107,457 ) (-2.6%)​
Estimated hashrate: 2.61 Th/s (-37.41%)
Current average reward time: 21.88 minutes (+59.35%)
Tokens minted: 3,327,300 0xBTC (+1.41%)
Token holders: 4556 holders (+1.37%)
Total contract operations: 188399 txs (+0.27%)
Source: https://0x1d00ffff.github.io/0xBTC-Stats/?page=stats&#

Tokens required to be a top holder (and changes since last time):
Top 10: 36197.32435793 0xBTC (0.00%)
Top 25: 23614.66689656 0xBTC (+4.04%)
Top 50: 14174 0xBTC (0.00%)
Top 100: 7159.1234115 0xBTC (+4.35%)
Top 200: 2994.7652797 0xBTC (+1.49%)
Top 300: 1550 0xBTC (+0.45%)
Top 500: 650.02267112 0xBTC (+7.08%)​
Top 1000: 165.9 0xBTC (+4.86%)
Source: https://etherscan.io/token/0xb6ed7644c69416d67b522e20bc294a9a9b405b31#balance

Recent events:
  1. The largest happening of the past two weeks is without a doubt Infernal_toast coming public in an interview he gave to Ethex. Not irrelevant is the date on which he did so - the 10th anniversary of the publication of the Bitcoin whitepaper. In addition to the holy image of our Royal Toastiness, there's also some interesting crypto stuff in the video. https://youtu.be/fKMDSc7-AA4
  2. Infernal_toast started a series called "Tokens with Toast", where he looks at the contracts of various ERC20 tokens and comments on them. The second video in the series looks at the contract of Oyster (PRL), which recently screwed over everyone that invested in it. The deployer had not locked himself out of the contract, so he could re-open the ICO and buy freshly-minted PRL tokens at ICO prices, which he promptly proceeded to dump on everyone. Highly educational stuff, recommended watching for everyone. https://youtu.be/iOTI5oslIbU
  3. Infernal_toast is the gift that keeps on giving, and in addition to the previous two things, he has also created a video preview of the LavaWallet. In case you're not in the know, then LavaWallet will allow people to transfer ERC20 tokens without having to hold ETH and by paying for the tx with ERC20 tokens instead, greatly simplifying transfers on the Ethereum network. https://youtu.be/qZwKrAhs8Xc
  4. The FPGA miners have switched their rigs to greener pastures and 0xBTC's hashrate has gone down considerably. 0x1d00ffff's website tracks the hashrate average between adjustments and since we're currently lining up for an adjustment, then the data displayed above is still somewhat skewed by the work that the FPGA's submitted a few hundred blocks ago. The charts he provides on his site are far more accurate if you're more interested in the current situation (https://0x1d00ffff.github.io/0xBTC-Stats/?page=graphs&#). The actual hashrate is more in the region of 400Gh/s and the blocktime is upwards of 100 minutes. As such, new supply is rapidly drying up and we're probably up for a grind towards a new adjustment just like during the summer.
  5. An idea was formed in the discord to do some paid marketing in the form of an advertorial on CCN. The 9 ETH required were raised in only a few days, with half of the amount donated by a generous whale - shout out to that homie. A community member going by Moonboy3000 (mirin' the name), who's a professional writer, volunteered to write the article and it'll hopefully be published early next week. The plan is to coincide the release of the article with press releases to various other news outlets as well as a refreshed version of the 0xBitcoin homepage that GeoffedUP has been working on. You can browse through the discord for the article and see the work-in-progress on the website at https://geoffedup.github.io/0xbitcoin.github.io/.
  6. Mr F wrote a letter to a journalist who's been writing articles about wBTC and the future of ETH-miners after Casper. Given his choice of topics, he should be interested in 0xBitcoin, so we might get some free exposure. No guarantees though, we'll just have to wait and see.
  7. Nic has been running 0xBitcoin ads on Youtube. Specifically, he's been running the "History of Cryptocurrency" video that toast made (https://youtu.be/Xf8W-C9fN5M). What's remarkable is that the video is over 10 minutes in length and over 20% of the people that had it displayed to them watched it to the end. That's probably on account of the fine targeting nic has done on the ads.
  8. 0xBitchain, which is the brainchild of lodge, has been moving forward in its development. I'mma be real honest with you though and admit that this whole sidechain thing is a bit above my head, so you'll just have to look for yourself. http://forum.0xbtc.io/t/concept-0xbitchain-a-layer-2-sidechain-that-runs-natively-on-0xbitcoin/117
  9. There's a voice chat in the discord now every Friday at 5 PM EST. It's jolly good fun having some banter with the lads, plus it's nice to be able to put a voice to the text.
  10. The discord has been very lively in general recently. It's by far the most active part of 0xBitcoin at the moment, so if you're interested in the project then hop on by. https://discord.gg/JGEqqmS
submitted by MoonMission1001 to 0xbitcoin [link] [comments]

Swiss Alps Mining

Swiss Alps Mining & Energy Logo, Source: swissalpsmining.io
In the world of cryptocurrencies, money is not created, it is discovered and this process is known as mining. Mining started off simple, it could be done with the hardware of any computer equipment but with the passage of time the activity became profitable, leaving behind the inefficient equipment, evolving into RIG and ASIC mining farms.
Nowadays, mining farms are being built seeking the best hardware conditions with an efficient hashrate, the lowest possible electrical consumption, and favorable environmental conditions to reduce energy consumption with 'natural cooling', combining eco-friendly solutions.
Swiss Alps Energy AG (SAE) is Swiss Alps Mining & Energy operating business combining: unused buildings in the Swiss Alps, environmentally friendly mining and a sophisticated mining farm called ‘Modular Cube System’ (SAM Cubes) which evolved the ‘how-to’ of a mining farm’s development.
SAE will rent out entire cubes or individual mining capacities, guaranteeing highly energy efficient and cost competitive mining. SAE will allow the possibility to rent mining facilities and the power needed can be paid in SAM tokens, offered on SAE Initial Coin Offer (ICO). Customers may also purchase cubes for their own use obtaining the necessary power from SAE and operating the cube on SAE’s premises, or deploy the cube elsewhere.
Key factors of the SAE mining farms.
In order to be profitable, it is essential to be efficient in all the factors that influence the cryptocurrency mining. SAE has taken into account a solution for all relevant factors:
Infrastructure: they take on disused structures that cannot be inhabited, which avoids the high costs in commercial property rentals.
A recovered alpine house for mining, source: swissalpsmining.io
SAM Cube: mining is evolving in the creation of mining farms within adapted containers which facilitates the transport of mining farms to a new location. SAE developed its own mobile farm in prefabricated and fast-mountable SAM Cubes. The Cubes improve the transport and design of containers used for maritime transportation. They are self-contained and operate autonomously thus achieving a maximum efficient mining for maximum profit. SAM Cubes have two models available.
https://swissalpsmining.io/
submitted by daupreapnemem1986 to Crypto_ICO_Investing [link] [comments]

How to get $100 million in VC funding to build an industry that makes $300 million profit without spending a dime

Yesterday I received an unexpected gift: a link to a copy of the slides of the presentation that 21inc gave to investors, apparently between October and December 2014, when they were still calling themselves "21E6".
(The sender asked to remain anonymous, and I am not sure about the copyright status of the file; so I would rather not repost it here yet. But it seems that several other people, including some of the 21inc competitors, have got a copy too; so anyone who is really interested can probably get it too.)
The slides don't have much new factual information, and basically confirm what we already guessed about the 21inc business plans. But they show that we severely underestimated their chutzpah and hype. Here are some random highlights (as far as I can decipher from the slides):
They had three relevant mining rig designs in the plans, that would require funding:
Codename Qty TH/s kW Cost Deploy Turnoff Profit($) --------------- ---- ---- --- ---- ------------ ----------- ----------- CyrusOne(v2), 7904 2.0 1.3 --- (already on) Apr 2015 ~23,000,000 IO(v1v3) 3250 5.2 1.3 2000 Jan 2015 Aug 2016 ~24,000,000 Brownfield(v3) 1900 5.5 1.3 2450 Mar 2015 > Nov 2017 ~20,000,000 
The "TH/s", "Cost", and "kW" columns are per "system", i.e. a mining unit containing many chips. The last column is the expected profit to be made from each set of mining hardware over its expected lifetime. (The slides have some other details that do not seem to be important.)
The first line is the hardware that they were mining with at the time of the presentation; that must be why the "Cost" (as far as investors are concerned) is given as zero.
The second line seems to be an upgrade of their previous mining hardware from v1 chips (which gave 2.7 PH/s total at the time) to v3 chips (which would give 17 PH/s) .
In reality, we have seen that their share of hashpower dwindled through all of 2015, and (AFAIK) they haven't mined a single block in the last six months. Were they still mining with CyrusOne on extra-life, or were they using the upgraded IO which was turned off prematurely? What happened to Brownfield?
However, their mining operations were secondary; the meat of their plan was the embedded chip, called BitSplit at the time.
The BitSPlit chip (as we suspected) was hard-wired to send 75% of the block reward to the 21inc wallet, whose address was burned in the silicon, and 25% to the user's wallet.
By my calculations, assuming 50 GH/s and no increase in the difficulty, the BitSplit would mine one block in 570 years, on average, and collect less than 2 BTC of reward in that time. So, of course, the chip was hard-wired to mine into a pool run by 21inc, that would spread the user's 25% of those 2 BTC (expected) into a daily regular trickle of a couple thousand satoshis. Their own mining operations would provide the BTC needed for the pool payouts of all the millions of chips that they expected to be running out there.
They projected to release 3 versions:
Model Qty GH/s W Cost Deploy Profit($) --------------- ---------- ---- -- ---- ------------ ------------ USB hub-charger 250,000 38 15 $35 Mar 2015 ~8,000,000 Embedded chip 1,000,000 63 15 $8 Aug 2015 ~103,000,000 BitSplit Inside 10,000,000 20 5 $0 Oct 2015 ~292,000,000 
The "Qty" is the expected number of units sold. The last column, IIUC, is the profit that 21inc expected to make from the 75% cut of the BTC produced by all the chips, over their expected lifetime.
In the above "USB hub-charger" model was a USB charging unit, roughly 3 x 2 x 1 inches, with 2 USB outputs and a mining chip inside, produced by 21inc themselves "to seed the market".
The second line, which I called "Embedded chip", seems to refer to discrete BitSplit chips provided by 21inc and included in consumer devices (like routers etc.) by OEM manufacturers.
The "BitSplit Inside" model would be the BitSplit integrated into the chipsets of other manufacturers, and manufactured by them. Its cost is listed as "$0" (for 21inc) because they expected those manufacturers to shoulder the cost of manufacturing and integrating the mining chip.
Apparently the market-seeding "USB hub-charger" was later replaced by the "Bitcoin Computer" (aka the PiTato). In one slide it is called "multifunctional BitSplit device", and depicted as a sleek shiny black box, the size of a cigarette pack, with a power cable and 2-3 USB or similar outputs. If that is supposed to be the PiTato, presumably they had not yet realized that a 15 w computer would need a cooling fan with a miniature wind tunnel on top.
In the last two entries, the manufacturers (not the device owners!) would be rewarded with the 25% slice of the BTC mined by those embedded chips. As an example, the slides say that a manufacturer who produced one quarter of the embedded BitSplits would get the 25% cut on the BTC yield of those chips, that was estimated to be between 2 and 4 million dollars per year of revenue in 2015--2018. Those numbers are based on the following predicted mean BTC prices: $350 for 2015, $1000 for 2016, $2200 for 2017, and $5500 for 2018.
So, their main business plan was fantastic: the OEM and chipset makers would pay the costs of producing and integrating the chips, the consumers would pay the cost of operating them, and 21inc would get 75% of all BTC mined by them, expected to be worth 400 million dollars.
It makes sense to invest 100 million in that plan, right?
EDIT1: Sentence order, typos.
EDIT2: See also this comment below about other sources of this info and this comment about a fatal flaw of the PiTato mining chip.
EDIT3: See also this comment with the data from slide 2, "At a glance"
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Swiss Alps Mining & Energy Gives The ‘Next Generation’ Of Crypto Mining Efficiency.

Key Factors of the SAE Mining Farms

In order to be profitable, it is essential to be efficient in all the factors that influence the cryptocurrency mining. SAE has taken into account a solution for all relevant factors:
https://swissalpsmining.io/
submitted by daupreapnemem1986 to Crypto_ICO_Investing [link] [comments]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [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]

GAW Miners - Liars, Frauds - A brief recap of what we know.

EDIT: I was asked by a GAW staff member to compile a list of questions the community has with/about GAW, Paybase, etc. Please provide any questions you have below and I'll have them forwarded
EDIT 2: It seems Josh is working on answering the questions I've asked and compiled. We'll see what happens when answers are released.
Hello, in the midst of this public uprising against GAW I'd like to present some facts for those of you who either:
a. Don't know who/what "GAW" is and why they're a scam,
b. Are brainwashed by Garza; those of you who genuinely believe in Paycoin and GAW Miners,
c. Don't quite have all of the information.
Note that I don't have every possible snippet of information out there, I'll just bring up some of the main points and complaints.
Pre-GAW
Ten months ago Garza was first introduced to the Bitcoin community in this post and this post.. From these posts we learn quite a bit of information regarding Garza's past; he offered false business deals to eBay sellers to partner with him. In the first article, we see that after he offered this couple "20% of his total profit" from his mining company and the couple asked for a reasonable counter-offer of $5k/month to pay their bills since they were unemployed, Garza filed a false Significantly Not As Described case on eBay, causing the couple to quite a bit of money and seriously affected their finances. The couple did some research about Garza and found this:
After looking at their old facebook profile, we saw that they were originally DirectTV salesman preying on small rural towns around New England offering people high-speed, internet and other telecom services that these people weren't able to get for whatever reason before. GAW was able to coerce MBI (Massachusetts Broadband Institute) to donate $40,000 to them for helping to bring services to everyone in the communities. Garza promised to build towers and other bullshit in these towns to help provide services, but they never did. At some point even when community leaders (one was David Kulp) repeatedly tried to get in touch with them, they never heard back.
So, it seems Garza has a knack for deceptive practices 'eh? Since the posts are so long and there's a lot to discuss, I'll let you read them and formulate your opinion on Garza. (Thanks to DidHeJust for the links to those threads).
-Early Phases
Originally, GAW showed NO proof of mining at all (not an address, block, pictures of mining hardware, pool usernames, nothing). Later on, during the Hashpoint 'mining' phase, he purchased 5 PH/s worth of mining equipment from Bitmaintech. For the short amount of time Paycoin was available for proof-of-work mining, there were tons of people renting mining rigs in order to get a cut of the "$20 Paycoins." Since the difficulty was fairly low, the prices per TH/s of these miners were very high, making it extremely easy to ROI on them. I'd be willing to bet that GAW rented out a lot of their hashpower for profit. They're currently selling the hardware they have left from this on oneminer.com.
There was also a brief period of time where you were able to purchase hardware from GAW and have it point to a pool of your choosing; however, this didn't account for too large of a portion of the hashpower they claim to have sold.
-Forums
GAW Miners owns a forum created them them, Hashtalk. This forum is heavily censored; if you attempt to inquire about some of GAW's deceptive practices, broken promises, or Paycoin design you'll either be outright banned or shadow banned (your account will remain useable to you, but nobody will be able to see any of your posts). This led to this uncensored discussion thread on Bitcointalk.
- Broken Promises
Promise 1: *"Always Profitable"**
GAW Miners claims that their Hashlets would always remain profitable and the $0.08 fee per MH/s would go down overtime. You know what GAW did instead? They kept their fees the same even when people were receiving only 1 satoshi. That's hardly profitable at all, as it's the minimum amount that they can really pay. So, they decided to move to mining Hashpoints for Paycoin (another broken promise, explained later).
Promise 2: *"Paycoin would launch with a $20 floor"**
This one is interesting. For the three months or so Hashpoint mining was available, Garza claimed that Paycoin would have a $20 floor (essentially that GAW would buy up any coin sold below $20 to keep the market place there or higher). Now, however, they've purged their censored forum of such claims so all that remains are screenshots as proof. Here's a few: https://i.imgur.com/YFXJiKB.png and https://i.imgur.com/HnotyMB.png Paycoin was traded at about $20 for a very brief period of time, but since then it's been dropping steadily, trading at just above $6/ea currently. Garza has done nothing to rectify the situation since.
Promise 3: *Large merchant support on launch**
From this thread we see that Garza promises that:
That’s right, you will be able to shop with Paycoin on the Amazon, Target, Walmart, Macy*s and Best Buy’s online stores.
A journalism website, coinfire.cf, contacted Amazon and the other companies claimed to be partnered with GAW. These companies all denied being affiliated with GAW, Amazon even threatened legal action if this continued. Once the article was published, the coinfire website was mysteriously hacked and the day after GAW threatened legal action. Read more about it here:
https://coinfire.cf/2014/11/22/is-gaw-miners-lying-about-partnerships/ and http://www.scribd.com/doc/248372603/Coinfire-Cease-and-Desist
-Censorship [Developing!!!]
At the moment GAW is taking down videos they've posted where they've made a certain "statement" on their mining.
-Paycoin
Ah, Paycoin. An altcoin plagued by delays and broken promises. Originally set to launch at $20 per coin, falsely leading people into investing money into Hashpoint miners for profit. The things Josh is doing and has done to get people to use Paycoin are laughable, I'd consider it treason against the Bitcoin community. He purchased the domain btc.com for $1,000,000 only to have it redirect to Paybase. Fun stuff 'eh? He's also claimed that his coin would be better than Bitcoin, denouncing it in order to promote his own coin. From code snippets we've seen, Paycoin's "Prime Nodes," part of the PoS system to generate new coins, has the ability to generate coins at a 350% interest rate. These wallets/stakers/controllers/nodes are only able to be controlled by GAW, of course. The code:
int64 nSubsidy = 0; int64 nRewardCoinYear = 0; // creation amount per coin-year if (primeNodeRate == 0) nRewardCoinYear = 5 * CENT; else if (primeNodeRate == 10) nRewardCoinYear = 10 * CENT; else if (primeNodeRate == 20) nRewardCoinYear = 20 * CENT; else if (primeNodeRate == 100) nRewardCoinYear = 100 * CENT; else if (primeNodeRate == 350) nRewardCoinYear = 350 * CENT; nSubsidy = nCoinAge * nRewardCoinYear * 33 / (365 * 33 + 8); if (fDebug && GetBoolArg("-printcreation")) printf("GetProofOfStakeReward(): primeNodeRate=%d create=%s nCoinAge=%"PRI64d"\n", primeNodeRate, FormatMoney(nSubsidy).c_str(), nCoinAge); return nSubsidy; 
Paycoin started off as a coin with a 13,000,000 coin market cap, with two stages. A Proof of Work and Proof of Share. Check this out: https://twitter.com/gawceo/status/532173907718332417 - Garza claims that he "mined" for the 12,000,000 coins he gained, although block one was programmed to give him that much... hah!
Credits to https://gist.github.com/jyap808/3f99de084df18ce325a7 for this;
Block 1. 12 million premine.
343,196 XPY mined during Proof of Work period.
343,196 - 56,889 = 286,307 XPY not mined by GAW Miners
12,343,196 XPY coins mined Total at the end of Proof of Work including pre-mine.
100 - (343196.0 / 12343196 * 100) = 97.22% Premined at the end of Proof of Work
It also seems like Garza stole the logo for Paycoin from https://www.gopago.com/. If you compare it with what's on https://paybase.com/ they're identical.
-Current and Recent Events
It's also known that there was a massive security/data breech during the Paybase launch, which allowed users to see other's balances and personal information https://coinfire.cf/2014/12/31/massive-security-breach-at-paybase/ which is being blamed on a "Cloudflare Caching Issue," however, that excuse makes very little sense.
Currently, people are having trouble withdrawing their Paycoins from Paybase, which GAW is blaming on Authy. Authy's services are functioning fine for all other services, which leads us to believe that it isn't Authy's fault.
When Hashtakers were sold, they would've only been really profitable at the $20 per Paycoin mark. With the current price people are losing money on their investment.
Note: This is somewhat unfinished and I'd like to hear feedback on what I should add and revise.
submitted by iTipBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is it still profitable to invest on S9 Cloud Mining Contract in ViaBTC?

Here's a patrt of latest announcement on Viabtc
https://pool.viabtc.com/announcement/47/ :
“The pre-sale of a new batch of S9 cloud mining contract will start on May 4th, 2018 (UTC+8) and its mining payout will be calculated at 00:00 June 15th, 2018 (UTC+8).
For this batch we’ve released 7,500 TH/s S9 cloud mining contracts. Running with Antminer S9, currently the most advanced mining rig, S9 cloud mining contract is pre-sold at only 159 USD per TH/s, with electricity cost as LOW as 0.216 USD daily per SHARE.”
Let's make it more clear.
Price: $159 (≈ 0.01696494 BTC) Per Share
EST. Daily Earnings: 0.00003454 BTC/Share (Electric fee, management fee deducted)
EST. for ROI:Around 491 Days, within 1.5 year
Profit from: 2018-06-15
If Bitcoin price stays at the current levels, and you just bought a share before the effective date, you'll getting profit no later than 2020. The fact is Bitcoin price will be much likely rise more than $10,000 before 2020.
And the difficulty changes is also a variable.
What price should bitcoin reach to if I should profit before 06/2019? Maths is beyond me.
submitted by didang to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Why are we not talking about how mining OpEx affects price of Butts?

Antminer S9 is rated at about 13TH/s minig rate and 1,3kW power consumption, which is 100W per TH/s. Current Bitcoin hashrate is somewhere around 20-25 EH/s. Assuming whole network is run by most efficient ASIC miners, the network would consume roughly 2-2,5GW, or 50-60GWh per day. At measly 0,04$ per kWh it still costs 2M USD per day to run the network in electricity costs alone. And this is assuming all network is powered by extremely efficient miners and extremely cheap electricity. Actual numbers are more likely to be close to 10M USD per day. It literally costs millions of filthy fiat per day to run the buttcoin network. mEth, other alts easily add more millions to the equation.
This is not about paper gains or anything. Buttcoin spends literally millions of filthy fiat for its existence. I am no economist, but to me it seems that unless there is at least several millions of fiat "flowing into" buttcoin (millions of new USD spent on buttcoin from miners) the price should fall - miners fighting for at least something than nothing. And that is every day. Every day without millions of new USD spent on buttcoin makes the price fall. Unless, of course, miners are heavily subsidized by previous profits or something else. This is the FUDamentals how buttcoins differ from stocks/bonds/forex buttcoiners are talking about.
Miners are kinda forced to liquidate at least some of the block reward to recoup at least OpEx and preferrably some CapEx used to acquire mining rigs. The higher transaction fees, the higher block rewards, thus more coins for miners. Consequently, miners have more coins to distribute operational expenses and profits to, thus USD price falls long term. And we have seen various theories popping up (having nothing to do with this) why high fees are destroying buttcoin economy.
How come buttcoin price is not falling down like a rock? Do we assume that there are still millions of USD per day being transfered to miners?
With "cash inflow" being constant, increase in hash rate by some factor should lower buttcoin price by similar factor. If buttcoin price is falling faster than hashrate climbs, then there is "negative ""cash inflow"" (air quotes to the rescue! negative as in less than total OpEx of mining operations) and vice-versa. I am just an ideas guy, but maybe someone will compute this.
submitted by AnswerForYourBazaar to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Merakit & Setup Mining Rig : Tutorial Ming part. 2 My first rig mining litcoin ltc with 2 gtx 750 ti 3 TH/s Bitcoin Mining Rig part 2 The Latest Bitcoin BTC Miner! Bitmain Antminer T19 84 Th/s Review Bitcoin Mining Rig - 24 Machine Setup - 48Gh

Shark Mining is a well-regarded company that makes some excellent pre-built mining rigs. Its Shark Mini is a compact rig that comes with four GPUs. The base model comes with AMD RX 570/580, but Method Two. Bitcoin Mining. This is the most “hardcore” method: instead of buying Bitcoin, you can mine it yourself. You don’t necessarily need to know what mining is, but you’d better have an understanding of it. Consider mining as the process of making money out of air and electricity, even though in reality it is a bit more complicated. Ethash Still Accessible to Home-Based Mining Rigs. In 2020, the Ethash algorithm is still amenable to home-based mining, and it is possible to build a rig and compete for block rewards.. An Ethereum mining rig is best built using GPU. Currently, there are specialized rigs with about 200 million hashes per second. Competition is heating up in the world of bitcoin mining rig manufacturing. Just recently, the Chinese producer Microbt has announced the launch of the M30S++ miner that processes speeds up to 112 2.5: Shark Extreme 2 (8 GPU) The Shark Extreme 2 (8 GPU) is an eight GPU card mining rig that is a popular choice for GPU-based mining setups. ~4500: 120MH/S: 400W-600W / 5A: 3: 10+ 2.5: Monero Miner 5000 H/s: The Monero Miner 5000 H/s is a customizable GPU-based mining rig specifically designed for Monero mining. ~2250: 120MH/S: 400W-600W / 5A

[index] [27468] [9251] [914] [185] [13706] [24286] [26366] [27433] [26220] [13450]

Merakit & Setup Mining Rig : Tutorial Ming part. 2

Here is the followup to my custom HVAC cooling solution video. Here I briefly show the insides of our mining rig setup. Let's review one of the latest Bitcoin ASIC mining rigs, the Bitmain Antminer T19 84 th/s miner! We will review Bitcoin mining profitability, network hashrate, network difficulty, relative sha-256 ... Apakah Orang Awan Bisa Buat Rig Mining Bitcoin Sendiri Free 200 Doge - Duration: 12:23. Mining Trading Bitcoin Indo 7,057 views. 12:23. Cara merakit komputer gaming - Duration: 2:16. Sorry for the wait guys! Shipping is a bitch, so is karma. MINING CRYPTOS (BITCOIN ETHEREUM) - LE BILAN ET LES VERITES APRES 2 ANS ! ... 27:15. Monter un rig de minage, quels composants choisir ? - Duration: 22:01. Monsieur-TK Recommended for you.

Flag Counter