Bitcoin Mining Pool Bitcoin.com

QuarkCoin Cryptocurrency

Quark is a decentralized digital monetary system. It facilitates sending Quarks to Friends, Family Members Online Payments free of charges and charge-backs. Military Grade Encryption. No Bank or Government Control. Quark coins are based on the original idea of Bitcoin but improved, more secure, faster transaction times and zero fees. With improvements to design and security. There is also a greater coin supply with higher block rewards for miners. Quark is fully Open Source.
[link]

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]

Bull market is back… Another wave of hacker attacks starts again?

Bull market is back… Another wave of hacker attacks starts again?

The picture from COINDESK related reports
On Aug. 2, Ethereum Classic Labs (ETC Labs) made an important announcement on ETC blockchain. ETC Labs said due to network attack, Ethereum Classic suffered a reorganization on August 1st. This has been the second attack on the Ethereum Classic Network this year.
Did renting-power cause the problem again?
In this ETC incident, one of the miners mined a large number of blocks offline. When the miner went online, due to its high computing power, and some versions of mining software did not support large-scale blockchain mergers, the consensus failed. Therefore, the entire network was out of sync, which produced an effect similar to a 51% attack. Finally, it caused the reorganization of 3693 blocks, starting at 10904147. The deposit and withdrawal between the exchanges and mining pools had to be suspended for troubleshooting during this period.
Media report shows that the blockchain reorganization may be caused by a miner (or a mining pool) disconnected during mining. Although it has been restored to normal after 15 hours of repair, it does reflect the vulnerability of the Proof of Work (PoW) network: once the computing power of the network is insufficient, the performance of one single mining pool can affect the entire network, which is neither distributed nor secure for the blockchain. Neither does it have efficiency.
At present, most consensus algorithms of blockchains are using PoW, which has been adopted over 10 years. In PoW, each miner solves a hashing problem. The probability to solve the problem successfully is proportional to the ratio of the miner’s hash power to the total hash power of mainnet.
Although PoW has been running for a long time, the attack model against PoW is very straightforward to understand, and has attracted people’s attention for a long time: such an attack, also known as double-spending attack, may happen when an attacker possesses 51% of the overall network hash power. The attacker can roll back any blocks in the blockchain by creating a longer and more difficult chain and as a result, modify the transaction information.
Since hash power can be rented to launch attacks, some top 30 projects have suffered from such attacks. In addition to this interference, the main attack method is through the computing power market such as Nice Hash. Hackers can rent hashpower to facilitate their attacks, which allows the computing power to rise rapidly in a short time and rewrite information. In January of this year, the Ethereum Classic was attacked once, and it was also the case that hackers can migrate computing power from the fiercely competitive Bitcoin and Ethereum, and use it to attack smaller projects, such as ETH Classic.

The picture shows the cost of attacking ETH Classic. It can be seen that it costs only $6,634 to attack ETH Classic for one hour.
The security of one network is no longer limited by whether miners within the main net take more than 51% of the total hash power, rather it is determined by whether the benevolent (non-hackers) miners take more than 51% of the total hash power from the pool of projects that use similar consensus algorithm. For example, the hash power of Ethereum is 176 TH/s and that of Ethereum Classic is 9 TH/s. In this way, if one diverts some hash power from Ethereum (176 TH/s) to Ethereum Classic, then one can easily launch a double-spending attack to Ethereum Classic. The hash power ratio for this attack between the two projects is 9/176 = 5.2%, which is a tiny number.

https://preview.redd.it/qj57vgmgb9f51.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=39c1efc3645f268dbf1c73e1b373d532d5461006
As one of the top 30 blockchain projects, Ethereum Classic has been attacked several times. Therefore, those small and medium-sized projects with low hash power and up-and-coming future projects are facing great potential risks. This is the reason that many emerging public chain projects abandon PoW and adopt PoS.
Proof of Stake (PoS) can prevent 51% attack but has problems of its own
In addition to PoW consensus, another well-adopted consensus algorithm is Proof of Stake (PoS). The fundamental concept is that the one who holds more tokens has the right to create the blocks. This is similar to shareholders in the stock market. The token holders also have the opportunities to get rewards. The advantages of PoS are: (i) the algorithm avoids wasting energy like that in PoW calculation; and (ii) its design determines that the PoS will not be subjected to 51% hash power attack since the algorithm requires the miner to possess tokens in order to modify the ledger. In this way, 51% attack becomes costly and meaningless.

https://preview.redd.it/rf65o1vhb9f51.png?width=685&format=png&auto=webp&s=9d7a9f9dab6ce823a224e91afa9d116310cf27e1
In terms of disadvantages, nodes face the problem of accessibility. PoS requires a permission to enter the network and nodes cannot enter and exit freely and thus lacks openness. It can easily be forked. In the long run, the algorithm is short of decentralization, and leads to the Matthew effect of accumulated advantages whereby miners with more tokens will receive more rewards and perpetuate the cycle.
More importantly, the current PoS consensus has not been verified for long-term reliability. Whether it can be as stable as the PoW system is yet to be verified. For some of the PoW public chains that are already launched, if they want to switch consensus, they need to do hard fork, which divides communities and carries out a long consensus upgrade and through which Ethereum is undergoing. Is there a safer and better solution?
QuarkChain Provide THE Solution: High TPS Protection + PoSW Consensus
For new-born projects, and some small or medium-sized projects, they all are facing the problem of power attack. For PoW-based chains, there are always some chains with lower hash power than others (ETC vs. ETH, BCH vs BTC), and thus the risk of attack is increased. In addition, the interoperability among the chains, such as cross-chain operation, is also a problem. In response, QuarkChain has designed a series of mechanisms to solve this problem. This can be summed up as a two-layer structure with a calculation power allocation and Proof of Staked Work (PoSW) consensus.
First of all, there is a layer of sharding, which can be considered as some parallel chains. Each sharding chain handles the transactions relatively independently. Such design forms the basis to ensure the performance of the entire system. To avoid security issues caused by the dilution of the hash power, we also have a root chain. The blocks of the root chain do not contain transactions, but are responsible for verifying the transactions of each shard. Relying on the hash power distribution algorithm, the hash power of the root chain will always account for 51% of the net. Each shard, on the other hand, packages their transactions according to their own consensus and transaction models.
Moreover, QuarkChain relies on flexibility that allows each shard to have different consensus and transaction models. Someone who wants to launch a double-spending attack on a shard that is already contained in the root chain must attack the block on the root chain, which requires calling the 51% hash power of the root chain. That is, if there are vertical field projects that open new shards on QuarkChain, even with insufficient hash power, an attacker must first attack the root chain if he or she wants to attack a new shard. The root chain has maintained more than 51% of the network’s hash power, which makes the attack very difficult.

https://preview.redd.it/rxpohs7jb9f51.png?width=674&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2df1307a1753542472f2b6da88e7a4022b30884

As illustrated in the diagram, if the attacker wants to attack the QuarkChain network, one would need to attack the shard and the root chain simultaneously.
PoW has achieved a high level of decentralization and has been verified for its stability for a long time. Combining PoW with the staking capability for PoS would make use of the advantages of both consensus mechanisms. That is what QuarkChain’s PoSW achieves exactly.
PoSW, which is Proof of Staked Work, is exclusively developed by QuarkChain and runs on shards. PoSW allows miners to enjoy the benefits of lower mining difficulty by staking original tokens (currently it’s 20 times lower). Conversely, if someone malicious with a high hash power and does not stake tokens on QuarkChain, he will be punishable by receiving 20 times the difficulty of the hash power, which increases the cost of attack. If the attacker stakes tokens in order to reduce the cost of attack, he/she needs to stake the corresponding amount of tokens, which may cost even more. Thus, the whole network is more secure.
Taking Ethereum Classics (ETC) as an example, if ETC uses the PoSW consensus, if there was another double-spending attack similar to the one in January, the attacker will need at least 110Th/s hash power or 650320 ETC (worth $3.2 million, and 8 TH/s hash power) to create this attack, which is far greater than the cost of the current attack on the network (8Th/s hash power) and revenue (219500 ETC).
Relying on multiple sets of security mechanisms, QuarkChain ensures its own security, while providing security for new shards and small and medium-sized projects. Its high level of flexibility also allows the projects to support different types of ledger models, transaction models, virtual machines, and token economics. Such great degrees of security and flexibility will facilitate the blockchain ecosystem to accelerate growth of innovative blockchain applications.
Learn more about QuarkChain
Website https://www.quarkchain.io
Telegram https://t.me/quarkchainio
Twitter https://twitter.com/Quark_Chain
Medium https://medium.com/quarkchain-official
Reddit https://www.reddit.com/quarkchainio/
Community https://community.quarkchain.io/
submitted by QuarkChain to quarkchainio [link] [comments]

Actual cost of a 51% attach, $10.2 million

So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this.
You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".

Accumulation Phase

Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be:
116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus"
So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threshold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.

Acceleration phase

Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) it will take Bond to win one block.
Although this can be hammered out in an iterive calculation, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations
solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p)
This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in.
m(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t/(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define
Plugging the equations into excel produces the following (assuming t=10)
n d p m s b
25 0.98% 1.96% 20.40 19.62 510
20 1.22% 2.44% 20.50 19.52 410
15 1.61% 3.23% 20.67 19.38 310
10 2.38% 4.76% 21 19.09 210
5 4.55% 9.09% 22 18.33 110
4 5.56% 11.11% 22.50 18 90
3 7.14% 14.29% 23.33 17.50 70
2 10% 20% 25 16.67 50
1 16.67% 33.33% 30 15 30
So once d=0.98%, Specture will have 50.98% of the hashing power, allowing him to eject 1.96% of all blocks mined at will. Of course this is all statistical, so Spectre will want some margin for randomness. So it would make sense to attach 1.5% of the blocks when Spectre reaches 51%
So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks (1.5%) from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 11.1 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52%
Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 4% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 10% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left.
Now, at 51% the attack and reorgs take many hours, but as more and more pools get targeted, more and more miners will jump ship and end up at Spectre so long as they can hold the promotion. Bond's only choice would be to either close up, or leverage everything and mine at a loss for weeks hoping that Spectre eventually drops below the threshold for his attack.
Of course Spectre has even more tremendous expenses. To offer the 1% promo to 10% of the network would cost Spectre $1.16 million / day, or 3.52 million per month for each percent of miners it lures over. So going from 41% to 61% would cost Spectre $70.3 million / month, but at that point he can attack 20% of the network giving him a reach of about 80% which is pretty much the entire pooled mining capacity today. Seems like $70 million is a small price to pay to buy the entire bitcoin network.
Other expenses Spectre would accrue would be related to the attacks and reorgs. The early attacks will take hours and throughout Spectre needs to continue payouts to the pool even though he is generating no BTC durring the attack. So long as his chain is orphaned, his blocks have no value. Only after the attack and reorg when his chain becomes longest will he be able to claim the block reward for all the blocks he minded. This (in my opinion) will the the hardest challenge. The first attack and 25 block reorg will require Spectre to put his entire 51% hashing power on an orphaned chain for 8 hours requireing $208.6 million in payouts. Once he wins the attack and the chain reorgs he can cover his expeses with the block reward, but borrowing $208 million for 8 hours is still a very difficult thing to pull off. The interest alone on the attack is over $40,000 (20% interest compounded continually). Below is a table of the calculations
Specte Bond Promo Cost Hrs Blks Levrg / Block Reorg Leverage Rate Int Cost
51.00% 1.50% $1,155,743 8.497 25 $8,025,990 $208,675,743 20% $40,485
51.50% 2.50% $1,232,745 5.825 17 $8,025,990 $144,467,822 20% $19,215
52.50% 4.50% $1,336,143 3.492 10 $8,025,990 $88,285,891 20% $7,039
54.50% 7.50% $1,562,998 2.141 6 $8,025,990 $56,181,931 20% $2,746
58.50% 14.50% $2,023,385 1.140 3 $8,025,990 $32,103,960 20% $835
66.70% 33.30% $2,970,442 0.500 1 $8,025,990 $16,051,980 20% $183
Of course, once Spectre gets 2/3 of the hashing power he controls the entire chain since he can include or exclude any block he wants. So this "Total Self Interest" simulation of a 6 day attack puts Spectre's expenses at $10.3 million in promotions and $71,000 in interest, or about $10.4 million total.
1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second
2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second
3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second
4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day
5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH
submitted by brianddk to brianddk [link] [comments]

Test post

TH = 1012 = 10004 hashes_per_second EH = 1018 = 10006 hashes_per_second
21.113
0.101 daily USD per TH/s
116.73 EH/s
So I was discussing this last week and honestly it all felt too simple, so I'm trying to get some stronger counterpoints to this argument. Goes something like this.
You have some pool miner that wants to do a 51% attack. Lets assume the attack has three phases, the first phase is to try to accumulate 51% of the hashing power, next is the accumulation of more hashing power by ejecting other pools from through reorg. Finally when they aquired enough mining power they could blacklist exchange hotwallets or all manner of nefariousness. Lets further assume that everyone will act purely in their own self interest. For simplicity lets call the attacker "Spectre Pool".

Accumulation Phase

Assuming Spectre Pool can hit something like 41% of the hashing power, the first goal is to accumulate more resources to hit 51%. Since pool mining is a commodity market, all Spectre has to do in this imaginary world is offer more than the market rate. Since they are already at 41% hashrate, they need to entice another 10% of the market to come to their pool. The obvious way to do this would be to offer a "new customer bonus" or something like that. Some promotion where they pay 1% above market price for the hashing power of pool members. So, given a network hashrate of 116.73 EH and a market rate of 0.101 USD/TH per day, the cost they would have to bear to offer a 1% promotion to entice 10% of the network would be:
116.73_EH / 0.101_USD/TH * 10% * 1% = 1,155,742 USD per day for each 1% "bonus"
So, assuming they were willing to spend that much on "marketing", and that all miners worked in their own self interest, eventually they could lure enough miners over to achive 51%. Once they hit this threahold they could scale back on the "marketing" and thus reduce their daily burn.

Acceleration phase

Once at 51%, the next attack of Spectre will be to put their smallest competitor out of buisness. Lets call that the "Bond Pool", and pretend that Bond has 1.5% of the network hashing power. To put Bond out of buisness, with 51%, Spectere will need to reorg whenever Bond wins a block. By reorging to a chain without Bond, this will put Spectre one block behind and they will need to catch up. Once the reorg begins, Spectre will need to produce the longest chain on its own while starting one block behind. So we need to determine how long (statisticly) it will take Specter to produce an n+1 blocks and compare that to how long (statisticly) with take Bond to produce another block.
Although this can be hammered out iterive calculations, a better approach will be an algebraic solution. Lets walk through the equations:
You can put the following into a GeoGebra CAS calculator to substitute and simplify the equations
solve(n*m = s*(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(n*m = s*(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p solve(b = s*(n+1),p)
This will produce the following equations for the values we are interested in.
m(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `m` define s(t,d): t*(1/2-d) # from `s` define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from `n` solve d(n): 1/(4*n+2) # from `d` solve p(d): 2*d # from `p` solve b(t,p): t/p # from `b` define
Here's a table
n d p m s b
25 0.98% 1.96% 20.40 19.62 510
20 1.22% 2.44% 20.50 19.52 410
15 1.61% 3.23% 20.67 19.38 310
10 2.38% 4.76% 21 19.09 210
5 4.55% 9.09% 22 18.33 110
4 5.56% 11.11% 22.50 18 90
3 7.14% 14.29% 23.33 17.50 70
2 10% 20% 25 16.67 50
1 16.67% 33.33% 30 15 30
solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = m*M/p
``` Tb = The avg time between blocks won by Bond durring the reorg Ts = The avg time for Spectre to produce a block durring the reorg Tm = The avg time for the main chain to produce a block durring the reorg n = The number of blocks Specter will need to reorg
Tb = 10_min / 49% / 3% = 10.89 Hrs Ts = 10_min / 51% = 19.61 Min Tm = 10_min / 49% = 20.41 Min
Solve for the amount of blocks Specter can reorg Tmn > Ts(n+1) Tnn > Tsn + Ts n > Ts/(Tn - Ts) n > 24.5
Therefore: Spectre can produce 26 blocks faster than the main chain can produce 25. Specter has to win the reorg before Bond produces another block
Assert: Ts * (n+1) < Tb 19.61_min * 26 < 10.89_hrs 8.50_hrs < 10.89_hrs ```
So once Spectre reaches 51% he has enough hashing power to prevent any of Bonds blocks from being included. Spectre can win a reorg (statistically) every 8.5 hrs and Bond can only produce a block (statisticly) every 10.89 hours. So once this attack starts, Spectre simply flashes his promotion to lure the miners in the Bond pool (who are receiving no reward) over to the Spectre pool. If he only gets one third of them, then he can increase his influence to 52%
Doing the same math again, with 52% Spectre can ice out any pool who has up to 7% of the hashing. Then running the promotion, Spectre will try to get 40% of the "homeless miners". Now Spectre's power grows to 55% giving him the power to ice out 16% of his competitors. This can cascade on and on until Spectre is the only public pool left.
1 - All "hashes" are hashes per second 2 - TH = 1012 or 10004 hashes per second 3 - EH = 1018 or 10006 hashes per second 4 - Assume a market rate of 0.101 USD / TH / day 5 - Assume an average daily network hashrate of 116.73 EH
``` solve(nm = s(n+1), n) M = 1/2-d S = 1/2+d m = t/M s = t/S solve(nm = s(n+1), d) n = s/(m-s) b = mM/p solve(b = s(n+1),p)
m(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from m define s(t,d): t(1/2-d) # from s define n(s,m): s/(m-s) # from n solve d(n): 1/(4n+2) # from d solve p(d): 2d # from p solve b(t,p): t/p # from b define ```
submitted by brianddk to brianddk [link] [comments]

Trying to understand cloud miners

I've been chekcing out a few cloud based mining sources like pool.bitcoin.com and I just can't seem to make heads nor tails of what to expect
For example on the bitcoin pool site, it doesn't seem to matter if it's for 6 months, a year, or two years, at any TH/s, the price you pay is coming in at a net loss by the end of it.
For example, 6 months of 500 TH/s for an upfront cost of $7,495 supposedly turns $31.48 worth of BCH per day (I understand the price fluctuates, this is the price the sites calculator gives me for today)
But then when I check out what that's supposed to end up with that only winds up to being $5,745 worth of BCH

1 year of 100TH/s for an upfront cost of $2,500 is to earn about $6.30 worth of BCH per day, but only ends up being $2,300 earned after 365 days

Is this the expectation, or is it just a bad day to be looking up these prices? I'm just wondering why i'd invest buy into these plans instead of, for example, trading?

Sorry for the noobie question, please don't roast me too badly, i'm just confused right now

Thank you
submitted by DJDarkViper to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Check my math: With $50k of hashpower over a 24 hour period, there's a 75% chance of me giving a transaction 1 fake confirmation, a 1% chance of me giving it 2 fake confirmations, and a 0.01% chance of 3 fake confirmations? Thanks

Edit 1: By "fake" confirmations, I mean the kind that allows me to reverse/double-spend the transaction as referred to here : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Confirmation#How_Many_Confirmations_Is_Enough
Edit 2 : If directly using NiceHash wouldn't work for such an attack (being a mining pool) then instead can we just use their rate as an approximation of the cost of hashpower to mine such transactions as an individual.
Original post :
NiceHash currently offers 180 TH/s for 24 hrs for $50. Assuming they could give me $50k of hashpower at this rate, that would be 180 PH/s for 24 hrs. That's 0.3% of the 60 EH/s approximate total hash rate of the bitcoin network. According to https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html that gives me a 0.6% chance of getting 1 confirmation per block, or a 99.4% chance of not getting that 1 confirmation in 1 block, or a 0.994240 = 23.6% chance of not getting 1 confirmation in the 240 blocks of the 24 hour period. So that's just over 75% chance of getting 1 fake confirmation in 24 hrs for $50k. The same process gives a 1% chance of getting 2 confirmations in 24 hrs, and a 0. 01% chance of 3 confirmations. Is this a reasonable way of calculating of how "fake" confirmations might be achieved?
submitted by ZedZeroth to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review


Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review

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

About the asicpower AP9-SHA256

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

Power Supply

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

Power Consumption

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

Profitability

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

Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?

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

Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?

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

Conclusion

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

Hashflare +-zero if 10% difficulty increase every 14 days in average! (we have even higher now!)

Simple calculation. 365 days mining (contract) means 26 difficulty changes (every 14 days). Imagine it's always 10% increase... safe and exactly 10%. That means, that we increase our difficulty from "1873105475221" to "22323905475221". To do it simple: we increase from 1873 to 22323. This is an increase of 1191%. (26 times 10% increase in a row). Taking now every difficulty value after 14 days for the whole 365 days and then taking the average from all of it we get (simplified) 8401.
According to this website, a 17 TH/s contract with ~17% pool fees (hashflare) and a safe block reward of 12.5 all the time, a static btc price of 17.500$ and the price for 17TH/s-contract (OLD PRICES!) it means that you do a +-zero with this contract, if the difficulty would be like 10% all the time. https://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculato?h=17000.00&p=0.00&pc=0.00&pf=17.00&d=8401205475221.60000000&r=12.50000000&er=17500.00000000&hc=2695.00
tl;dr: lets hope that difficulty wont increase 1x% every 14 days from now. lets hope btc value wont drop back to 10.000USD or even less.
tl;dr2: If difficulty is higher than hoped for, but BTC increases to 30.000USD you obviously did some money with your hashflare contract. But if you just buy the coin from a marketplace today for 17.500 USD you would have done MORE money with just keeping it in your wallet than cloud mining with hashflare.
tl;dr3: dont trust those youtubers, they just do tons of money with affiliate programs and not with mining.
KEEP THIS IN MIND PLX, it's looking like free money without working for it, but think about your dad's wise words: you will get nothing free in life!
sry for bad english.
submitted by zBzMystery to hashflare [link] [comments]

Why is it so hard to mine for bitcoin?

Why is it so hard to mine for bitcoin?
Bitcoin mining has become more competitive than ever.
Bitcoin mining difficulty – the measure of how hard it is to earn mining rewards in the world’s largest cryptocurrency by market cap – has reached a new record high above 7.93 trillion. That’s a seven percent jump from the 7.45 trillion record set during the recent two-week adjustment cycle, which was the highest since October 2018.
Bitcoin is designed to adjust its mining difficulty every 2,016 blocks (approximately 14 days), based on the amount of computing power deployed to the network. This is done to ensure the block production interval at the next period will remain constant at around every 10 minutes. When there are fewer machines racing to solve math problems to earn the next payout of newly created bitcoin, difficulty falls; when there are more computers in the game, it rises.

https://preview.redd.it/s7grcdbkzdn31.png?width=728&format=png&auto=webp&s=4fc30767e70d67539747186fdd5a7d01511c4cbd
Data from Bitcoin Block Explorer - BTCNEWZ.com
Right now the machines are humming furiously. Bitcoin miners across the world have been performing calculations at an average 56.77 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s) over the last 14 days to compete for mining rewards on the world’s first blockchain, according to data from mining pool.
Data further indicates the average bitcoin mining hash rate in the last 24-hour and three-day periods were 59.58 EH/s and 59.70 EH/s, respectively, even higher than the average 56.77 EH/s from May 15 to June 27, or any 14-day data in the network’s history.
Similarly, data from blockchain also shows the aggregate of bitcoin computing power was around 66 EH/s as of June 22, surpassing last year’s record high of 61.86 EH/s tracked by the site, and has more than doubled since December 2018 when the hash rate dropped to as low as 31 EH/s amid bitcoin’s price fall.
Assuming all such additional computing power has come from more widely used equipment such as the AntMiner S9, which performs calculations at an average rate of 14 tera hashes per second (TH/s), that suggests more than 2 million units of mining equipment may have been switched on over the past several months. (1 EH/s equals to 1 million TH/s)

https://preview.redd.it/b681p3plzdn31.png?width=1440&format=png&auto=webp&s=49efa21d8460553aceb87b64a106170b30a4c76a
The increase in capacity is also in line with bitcoin’s price jump over the first half of 2019, which caused the price of second-hand mining equipment to double in China, and also juiced demand for new machines.
Further estimates the bitcoin mining difficulty will jump by another seven percent at the beginning of the next adjustment cycle, which would be the first time for bitcoin mining difficulty to cross the eight trillion threshold.
Delayed plugging in
Such computing interest comes at a time when mining farms in China, especially in the country’s mountainous southwest, have been gradually plugging in equipment as the rainy summer approaches.
According to a report published by blockchain research firm Coinshare, as of earlier this month, 50 percent of the global bitcoin computing power was located in China’s Sichuan province.
However, it’s important to note that this year, the arrival of the rainy season in China’s southwest has been delayed by nearly a month compared to previous years. As a result, some local mining farms were only running less than half of their total capacity in the past month.
Xun Zheng, CEO of mining farm operator Hashage based in Chengdu that owns several facilities across China’s southwestern provinces, said there had been no rain in the area for over 20 days since early May, which was “unusual.”
“In the past years, it usually starts raining continuously throughout May so [hydropower plants] normally will have enough water resources by early June,” he said.
As a result, in early June his firm was only operating at 40 percent of capacity; it can host more than 200,000 ASIC miners. But as the rain has arrived gradually over the past two weeks, the proportion has climbed to over 60 percent.
Mining farms in China previously estimated that the total hash rate this year during the peak of the rainy season around August could break the threshold of 70EH/s. That means another 300,000 units of mining machines could be further activated, assuming all are AntMiner S9s or similar models.
Those waiting to be switched on will also include new capital in the sector such as Shanghai-based Fundamental Labs, a blockchain fund that has invested $44 million on top-of-the-line mining equipment, which will be activated in June.
submitted by alifkhalil469 to BtcNewz [link] [comments]

Am I missing something about bitcoin.com's cloud mining contracts ?

according to https://pool.bitcoin.com/ :
1 TH/s costs $250 for 5 years
their calculator shows an expected daily profit (after fees, at current difficulty and price) of 0.00019337 BCH ($0.11) per day
so $0.11*365*5 = $200 revenue for a $250 contract from the get-go, and that is expecting the difficulty to stay the same, and we all know it will probably increase and make the contract less profitable.
Am I missing something ? Did anyone ever made a profit from these contracts ?
submitted by zhell_ to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Power Hits New High as Half a Million New ASICs Go Online

Bitcoin Mining Power Hits New High as Half a Million New ASICs Go Online


News by Coindesk: Wolfie Zhao
The computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin has hit yet another new high, suggesting that more than 600,000 powerful new machines may have come online in the last three months.
According to data from crypto mining pool BTC.com, bitcoin’s two-week average hash rate has crossed another major threshold, reaching 85 exahashes per second (EH/s) around 19:00 UTC last Friday. Meanwhile, mining difficulty also adjusted to a new record of nearly 12 trillion.
Notably, both figures have jumped 60 percent since June 14, the data shows.
Bitcoin’s mining difficulty — a measure of how hard it is to create a block of transactions — adjusts after 2,016 blocks, or roughly every two weeks. This is to ensure the time to produce a block remains around 10 minutes, even as the amount of hashing power, deployed by machines around the globe competing to win freshly minted bitcoins, fluctuates.
Several new models of application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) miners hit the market over the summer, with an average hashing power around 55 tera hashes per second (TH/s).
Assuming all of the 35 EH/s of new hashing power added since mid-June came from these top-of-the-line models, a back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that more than half a million such machines have connected to the bitcoin network. (1 EH/s =1 million TH/s)

Billion-dollar business?

These powerful ASIC miners, made by major manufacturers such as Bitmain, Canaan, InnoSilicon and MicroBT, are priced from $1,500 to $2,500 each. So if more than half a million of them were delivered, as estimated above, the leading miner makers could have made $1 billion in revenue over the past three months.
Bitcoin’s spiking hash rate and difficulty are in line with the soaring price since earlier this year, which led to increasing demand for mining equipment that has significantly outstripped supply. It’s also in part thanks to the rainy summer season in southwestern China which resulted in cheap, abundant hydroelectric power.
Further, there has also been a growing interest in Russia’s Eastern Siberia region, where the Brastsk hydropower station built in the Cold War era has been utilized to power mining farms that are estimated to account for almost 10 percent of the total computing power on the bitcoin network.
Miners in China estimated earlier this year that bitcoin’s average hash rate in the summer would break the level of 70 EH/s, which happened in August.
As such, major miner manufacturers have already sold out equipment that is due for shipment until the end of the year with customers placing pre-orders three months in advance.
TokenInsight, a startup that focuses on analysis of crypto trading and mining activities, said in a report published Friday that additional supplies of miners are expected to hit the market in the coming months.
“Following the drastic increase in bitcoin’s price, the bitcoin mining market saw significant inflation in Q2 2019. Most of the miners from various manufacturers were in serious shortage and pre-orders submitted in Q2 and Q3 are to be delivered by the end of the year,” the report states.
Therefore, the firm estimates mining difficulty will maintain its growth momentum to reach 15 trillion by the end of the year — with bitcoin’s average total hashing power crossing the threshold of 100 EH/s for the first time in its history.
Bitcoin mining facility image courtesy of Bcause
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]

I've been working on a bot for crypto subs like /r/bitcoin for a few days now. Say hello to crypto_bot!

Hey guys, I've been working on crypto_bot for some time now. It provides a bunch of features that I hope will enhance your experience on /bitcoin (and any other subreddit). You can call it by mentioning it in a comment. I started working on this a few days ago. I'm constantly adding new features and will update this post when I do, but if you're interested I'll post all updates and some tips at /crypto_bot. Please either comment here, message me, or post there if you'd like to report a bug, request a feature, or offer feedback. There's also one hidden command :)
You can call multiple commands in one comment. Here's a description of the commands you can use:

Market Data:

crypto_bot 
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin from an average of six of the top bitcoin exchanges (BTC-E, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Coinbase, Kraken, Cryptsy).
crypto_bot ticker 
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin at seven exchanges (all of the ones listed above, plus LocalBitcoins). Also lists the average at the bottom.
crypto_bot [exchange] 
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin from [exchange] (any of the seven listed above).
crypto_bot [litecoin|ltc|dogecoin|doge] 
Responds with the USD price of one litecoin, or the price of 1 doge and 1,000 doge.
crypto_bot litecoin|ltc [exchange] 
Responds with the USD price of one litecoin from BTC-E, Bitfinex, Kraken, or Cryptsy.
crypto_bot [currency] 
Responds with the price of one bitcoin in the specified currency. Available currencies (symbols): JPY, CNY, SGD, HKD, CAD, NZD, AUD, CLP, GBP, DKK, SEK, ISK, CHF, BRL, EUR, RUB, PLN, THB, KRW, TWD.

Information:

crypto_bot [about|info] [arg] 
Responds with a short description about [arg], as well as a link to an external site (Wikipedia, bitcoin.it, and some others) for more information. You can list multiple arguments and get a description for each. Available arguments: bitcoin, block chain, transaction, address, genesis, satoshi, mining, confirmation, coinbase, gox, cold wallet, hot wallet.
crypto_bot legal 
Responds with a chart about the legality of bitcoin in 40 countries, copied straight from Wikipedia.
crypto_bot [explain transaction delay|explain tx delay] 
Responds with an explanation of why transactions may take longer to confirm (the bot specifically discusses spam-transaction attacks in this command).

Network information/tools:

crypto_bot difficulty 
Responds with the current difficulty of the bitcoin network.
crypto_bot [height|number of blocks] 
Responds with the current height of the block chain.
crypto_bot retarget 
Responds with what block the difficulty will recalculate at, as well as how many blocks until the network reaches that block.
crypto_bot [unconfirmed transactions|unconfirmed tx] 
Responds with the current number of unconfirmed transactions.
crypto_bot [new address|generate address] 
Responds with a newly-generated public and private key. This is mainly to provide an explanation of what both look like, and contains a clear warning to not use or send bitcoins to the address.
crypto_bot blockinfo [height] 
Responds with information about block #[height], including its hash, time discovered, and number of transactions.
crypto_bot [address] 
Responds with information about [address], including its balance and number of transactions.
crypto_bot [transaction_id] 
Responds with information about [transaction_id], including what block it was included in, its size, and its inputs and outputs.

Calculators:

crypto_bot calc <# miningspeed> [#][w] [#][kwh] [#][difficulty] [hc$#] [$#] [#%] 
Responds with calculations and information about how a miner would do with the above data (mining calculator). The only required field is mining speed. Order of the arguments does not matter. Everything other than hashrate defaults to the following if not given: w (watts): 0, kwh ($kilowatt cost/hour): 0, difficulty: current network difficulty, hc$ (hardware cost): $0, $: current bitcoin price in usd (according to Coinbase), % (pool fee): 0. The calculator does not account for nor allow for input of the increase/decrease of difficulty over time, though I may add this feature soon. Working hashing speeds: h/s, kh/s, mh/s, gh/s, th/s, ph/s.
Example usage: "crypto_bot calc 30th/s 10w .12kwh hc$55 1.5%" (to make it easier to remember, th/s can also be inputted as ths). This calls the bot with a hashrate of 30 th/s, electricity usage of 10w, a cost of $.12 kWh, a hardware cost of $55, and a pool fee of 1.5%.
crypto_bot number of btc <$amount to convert> [bp$bitcoin price] 
Responds with the number of bitcoins you could buy with <$amount to convert>. If the comment specifies a [bp$bitcoin price], it calculates it with that exchange rate. Otherwise, it uses the rate from Coinbase.
Example usage: "crypto_bot $419.29 bp$180.32" This calculates how many bitcoins you can buy if you have $419.29 and the bitcoin exchange rate is $180.32.

Broadcasting

SignMessage! "" 
Signs a message in the bitcoin block chain in a transaction using OP_RETURN. The message must be less than 40 characters.
Example usage: "SignMessage! "Post messages in the block chain!""
I hope you find this bot useful! Again, if you have any questions or comments, please either comment on this post, message me, or post on /crypto_bot.
Update 1 (June 24, 2015, 17:35): The bot now responds with information if you post a link to a block, transaction, or address on Blockchain.info in a comment, even if you don't call it. For example, if I wrote "https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000126448be07fb1f82af19fbbf07dd7e07ebcd08d42c2660cb" in a comment, it would respond with information about block #362,377.
Update 2 (July 10, 2015, 1:59): The bot now has two additional commands: "unconfirmed transactions" (or "unconfirmed tx") and "explain transaction delay" (or "explain tx delay"). The first command responds with the number of unconfirmed transactions, and the second explains why transactions might take extra time to confirm.
Update 3 (August 24, 2015, 1:34): The bot now responds in a better way than before when transaction ids or addresses are posted. Before, it only responded when the transaction id or address was used in a link to Blockchain.info. Now the bot will respond whenever a transaction id or address is posted at all; a link to Blockchain.info is no longer necessary.
Update 4 (August 27, 2015, 3:00): The bot can now sign messages in the Bitcoin block chain using OP_RETURN.
submitted by busterroni to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Decred Journal – August 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link) to see all the links.

Development

dcrd: Version 1.3.0 RC1 (Release Candidate 1) is out! The main features of this release are significant performance improvements, including some that benefit SPV clients. Full release notes and downloads are on GitHub.
The default minimum transaction fee rate was reduced from 0.001 to 0.0001 DCkB. Do not try to send such small fee transactions just yet, until the majority of the network upgrades.
Release process was changed to use release branches and bump version on the master branch at the beginning of a release cycle. Discussed in this chat.
The codebase is ready for the new Go 1.11 version. Migration to vgo module system is complete and the 1.4.0 release will be built using modules. The list of versioned modules and a hierarchy diagram are available here.
The testnet was reset and bumped to version 3.
Comments are welcome for the proposal to implement smart fee estimation, which is important for Lightning Network.
@matheusd recorded a code review video for new Decred developers that explains how tickets are selected for voting.
dcrwallet: Version 1.3.0 RC1 features new SPV sync mode, new ticket buyer, new APIs for Decrediton and a host of bug fixes. On the dev side, dcrwallet also migrated to the new module system.
Decrediton: Version 1.3.0 RC1 adds the new SPV sync mode that syncs roughly 5x faster. The feature is off by default while it receives more testing from experienced users. Other notable changes include a design polish and experimental Politeia integration.
Politeia: Proposal editing is being developed and has a short demo. This will allow proposal owners to edit their proposal in response to community feedback before voting begins. The challenges associated with this feature relate to updating censorship tokens and maintaining a clear history of which version comments were made on. @fernandoabolafio produced this architecture diagram which may be of interest to developers.
@degeri joined to perform security testing of Politeia and found several issues.
dcrdata: mainnet explorer upgraded to v2.1 with several new features. For users: credit/debit tx filter on address page, showing miner fees on coinbase transaction page, estimate yearly ticket rewards on main page, cool new hamburger menu and keyboard navigation. For developers: new chain parameters page, experimental Insight API support, endpoints for coin supply and block rewards, testnet3 support. Lots of minor API changes and frontend tweaks, many bug fixes and robustness improvements.
The upcoming v3.0 entered beta and is deployed on beta.dcrdata.org. Check out the new charts page. Feedback and bug reports are appreciated. Finally, the development version v3.1.0-pre is on alpha.dcrdata.org.
Android: updated to be compatible with the latest SPV code and is syncing, several performance issues are worked on. Details were posted in chat. Alpha testing has started, to participate please join #dev and ask for the APK.
iOS: backend is mostly complete, as well as the front end. Support for devices with smaller screens was improved. What works now: creating and recovering wallets, listing of transactions, receiving DCR, displaying and scanning QR codes, browsing account information, SPV connection to peers, downloading headers. Some bugs need fixing before making testable builds.
Ticket splitting: v0.6.0 beta released with improved fee calculation and multiple bug fixes.
docs: introduced new Governance section that grouped some old articles as well as the new Politeia page.
@Richard-Red created a concept repository sandbox with policy documents, to illustrate the kind of policies that could be approved and amended by Politeia proposals.
decred.org: 8 contributors added and 4 removed, including 2 advisors (discussion here).
decredmarketcap.com is a brand new website that shows the most accurate DCR market data. Clean design, mobile friendly, no javascript required.
Dev activity stats for August: 239 active PRs, 219 commits, 25k added and 11k deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: went from 54 to 76 PH/s, the low was 50 and the new all-time high is 100 PH/s. BeePool share rose to ~50% while F2Pool shrank to 30%, followed by coinmine.pl at 5% and Luxor at 3%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 95.6 DCR (+3.0) as of Sep 3. During the month, ticket price fluctuated between a low of 92.2 and high of 100.5 DCR. Locked DCR represented between 3.8 and 3.9 million or 46.3-46.9% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 217 public listening and 281 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 2% at v1.4.0(pre) (dev builds), 5% on v1.3.0 (RC1), 62% on v1.2.0 (-5%), 22% on v1.1.2 (-2%), 6% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Almost 69% of nodes are v.1.2.0 and higher and support client filters. Data snapshot of Aug 31.

ASICs

Obelisk posted 3 email updates in August. DCR1 units are reportedly shipping with 1 TH/s hashrate and will be upgraded with firmware to 1.5 TH/s. Batch 1 customers will receive compensation for missed shipment dates, but only after Batch 5 ships. Batch 2-5 customers will be receiving the updated slim design.
Innosilicon announced the new D9+ DecredMaster: 2.8 TH/s at 1,230 W priced $1,499. Specified shipping date was Aug 10-15.
FFMiner DS19 claims 3.1 TH/s for Blake256R14 at 680 W and simultaneously 1.55 TH/s for Blake2B at 410 W, the price is $1,299. Shipping Aug 20-25.
Another newly noticed miner offer is this unit that does 46 TH/s at 2,150 W at the price of $4,720. It is shipping Nov 2018 and the stats look very close to Pangolin Whatsminer DCR (which has now a page on asicminervalue).

Integrations

www.d1pool.com joined the list of stakepools for a total of 16.
Australian CoinTree added DCR trading. The platform supports fiat, there are some limitations during the upgrade to a new system but also no fees in the "Early access mode". On a related note, CoinTree is working on a feature to pay household bills with cryptocurrencies it supports.
Three new OTC desks were added to exchanges page at decred.org.
Two mobile wallets integrated Decred:
Reminder: do your best to understand the security and privacy model before using any wallet software. Points to consider: who controls the seed, does the wallet talk to the nodes directly or via middlemen, is it open source or not?

Adoption

Merchants:

Marketing

Targeted advertising report for August was posted by @timhebel. Facebook appeal is pending, some Google and Twitter campaigns were paused and some updated. Read more here.
Contribution to the @decredproject Twitter account has evolved over the past few months. A #twitter_ops channel is being used on Matrix to collaboratively draft and execute project account tweets (including retweets). Anyone with an interest in contributing to the Twitter account can ask for an invitation to the channel and can start contributing content and ideas there for evaluation by the Twitter group. As a result, no minority or unilateral veto over tweets is possible. (from GitHub)

Events

Attended:
For those willing to help with the events:
BAB: Hey all, we are gearing up for conference season. I have a list of places we hope to attend but need to know who besides @joshuam and @Haon are willing to do public speaking, willing to work booths, or help out at them? You will need to be well versed on not just what is Decred, but the history of Decred etc... DM me if you are interested. (#event_planning)
The Decred project is looking for ambassadors. If you are looking for a fun cryptocurrency to get involved in send me a DM or come talk to me on Decred slack. (@marco_peereboom, longer version here)

Media

Decred Assembly episode 21 is available. @jy-p and lead dcrwallet developer @jrick discussed SPV from Satoshi's whitepaper, how it can be improved upon and what's coming in Decred.
Decred Assembly episodes 1-21 are available in audio only format here.
New instructional articles on stakey.club: Decrediton setup, Deleting the wallet, Installing Go, Installing dcrd, dcrd as a Linux service. Available in both English and Portuguese.
Decred scored #32 in the August issue of Chinese CCID ratings. The evaluation model was explained in this interview.
Satis Group rated Decred highly in their cryptoasset valuation research report (PDF). This was featured by several large media outlets, but some did not link to or omitted Decred entirely, citing low market cap.
Featured articles:
Articles:
Videos:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news:
After another debate about chat systems more people began testing and using Matrix, leading to some gardening on that platform:
Highlights:
Reddit: substantive discussion about Decred cons; ecosystem fund; a thread about voter engagement, Politeia UX and trolling; idea of a social media system for Decred by @michae2xl; how profitable is the Obelisk DCR1.
Chats: cross-chain trading via LN; plans for contractor management system, lower-level decision making and contractor privacy vs transparency for stakeholders; measuring dev activity; what if the network stalls, multiple implementations of Decred for more resilience, long term vision behind those extensive tests and accurate comments in the codebase; ideas for process for policy documents, hosting them in Pi and approving with ticket voting; about SPV wallet disk size, how compact filters work; odds of a wallet fetching a wrong block in SPV; new module system in Go; security of allowing Android app backups; why PoW algo change proposal must be specified in great detail; thoughts about NIPoPoWs and SPV; prerequisites for shipping SPV by default (continued); Decred vs Dash treasury and marketing expenses, spending other people's money; why Decred should not invade a country, DAO and nation states, entangling with nation state is poor resource allocation; how winning tickets are determined and attack vectors; Politeia proposal moderation, contractor clearance, the scale of proposals and decision delegation, initial Politeia vote to approve Politeia itself; chat systems, Matrix/Slack/Discord/RocketChat/Keybase (continued); overview of Korean exchanges; no breaking changes in vgo; why project fund burn rate must keep low; asymptotic behavior of Decred and other ccs, tail emission; count of full nodes and incentives to run them; Politeia proposal translations and multilingual environment.
An unusual event was the chat about double negatives and other oddities in languages in #trading.

Markets

DCR started the month at USD 56 / BTC 0.0073 and had a two week decline. On Aug 14 the whole market took a huge drop and briefly went below USD 200 billion. Bitcoin went below USD 6,000 and top 100 cryptos lost 5-30%. The lowest point coincided with Bitcoin dominance peak at 54.5%. On that day Decred dived -17% and reached the bottom of USD 32 / BTC 0.00537. Since then it went sideways in the USD 35-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0064 range. Around Aug 24, Huobi showed DCR trading volume above USD 5M and this coincided with a minor recovery.
@ImacallyouJawdy posted some creative analysis based on ticket data.

Relevant External

StopAndDecrypt published an extensive article "ASIC Resistance is Nothing but a Blockchain Buzzword" that is much in line with Decred's stance on ASICs.
The ongoing debates about the possible Sia fork yet again demonstrate the importance of a robust dispute resolution mechanism. Also, we are lucky to have the treasury.
Mark B Lundeberg, who found a vulnerability in atomicswap earlier, published a concept of more private peer-to-peer atomic swaps. (missed in July issue)
Medium took a cautious stance on cryptocurrencies and triggered at least one project to migrate to Ghost (that same project previously migrated away from Slack).
Regulation: Vietnam bans mining equipment imports, China halts crypto events and tightens control of crypto chat groups.
Reddit was hacked by intercepting 2FA codes sent via SMS. The announcement explains the impact. Yet another data breach suggests to think twice before sharing any data with any company and shift to more secure authentication systems.
Intel and x86 dumpsterfire keeps burning brighter. Seek more secure hardware and operating systems for your coins.
Finally, unrelated to Decred but good for a laugh: yetanotherico.com.

About This Issue

This is the 5th issue of Decred Journal. It is mirrored on GitHub, Medium and Reddit. Past issues are available here.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
Feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room on Matrix or Slack.
Contributions are welcome too. Some areas are collecting content, pre-release review or translations to other languages. Check out @Richard-Red's guide how to contribute to Decred using GitHub without writing code.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Haon, jazzah, Richard-Red and thedecreddigest.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

PSA: Hashflare isn't as profitable as it seems like it is

For example, if you purchase 1 TH/S of hash rate, in one year, you'll only profit ~$10. This is because of the maintenance fee of $0.0035 per 10 GH/S, and also the increasing difficulty of mining.
Calculation: http://www.mycryptobuddy.com/BitcoinMiningCalculatopath?hashrate=1&powerCost=0&poolFee=0&rejectRate=0&hardwareCost=220&sellingProfile=never&recurringCosts=10.85
The recurring cost of $10.85 per month is because of the maintenance fee. $0.0035 * 100 = $0.35 per day. $0.35 * 31 Days = 10.85 per month
submitted by Eduguy1 to hashflare [link] [comments]

Cybtc Review: Bitmain Antminer S15-28TH/s

Cybtc Review: Bitmain Antminer S15-28TH/s
Bitmain is a technology company specializing in high-speed, low-power custom chip design and development, successfully designed and produced a variety of ASIC custom chips and integrated systems. Bitmain was founded in 2013. In the same year, it launched the first generation bitcoin mining machine of the ant mining machine series - Antminer S1. After more than five years of development, the antminer series bitcoin mining machine passed S1, S2, S3, S4 Iterations of multiple models of S5, S7 and S9, the latest bitcoin mining models are S15 and T15, which will be sold on November 8, 2018.

The Antminer S15 adopts a new 7nm chip process. The official evaluation of the S15 is durable, energy saving. Emphasizing the characteristics of "high performance, more durable, and more power saving". From the officially announced parameters, the Antminer S15 is built in. Standard and low-power mining modes. The officially announced parameters have a unit-to-power ratio of 57J/T in standard mode, and the unit-to-power ratio of low-power mode has reached 50J/T. Compared to the products in the current market, in terms of Bitcoin miners, this unit power consumption ratio has set a new record.

Antminer S15 official parameters,

https://preview.redd.it/9fgwfaqp6bd21.jpg?width=1015&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8239da7bcece1abb80f1fb56708e02fa111a150b

Recently, the Antminer S15 has sent to Cybtc for testing. Please see the third-party independent review by us.

I. Unpacking:

Because the Antminer S15 adopts a new all-in-one and parallel fan design, the packaging box has changed from the previous generations. The previous cuboid has changed into a square-like style. The packaging material is still packaged in an industrial carton, and the box is marked manufacturer information, logistics warehousing logo, mining machine specification model and strip identification code, outer box size: 486*388*265, weight about 8.7kg.

The interior of the two pieces of styrofoam is firmly packed in the box from the upper and lower sides to ensure the safety of the mining machine during transportation. There is also a gap around the pearl foam for easy access.

Take out the styrofoam on one side to see the main body of the mining machine. The mining machine is wrapped by an anti-electrostatic bag. Compared with the box, the mining machine looks very small and only takes up about half of the box space.

The Antminer S15 changed the style of single-tube with double cooling fans as S1-S9 models, and became a dual-fan parallel single-side air intake and adopted the integrated machine design of the mining machine + power supply. The whole machine size is 279*175*221mm, weight 7.13 kg.

https://preview.redd.it/k0xp89yy6bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5504d958a4cc6fdb1c01783b777e60483ea7ef9a

The Antminer S15 is small and neat, the air inlet side and the mining machine interface side are on the same side, the fan is removed from the air outlet side, and a honeycomb-shaped baffle is used.

https://preview.redd.it/ex187jf27bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8210c514e186dae075d9b986f7682a49141aa6a

The advantage of the all-in-one design is that the wire connection is reduced. The appearance of the mining machine is more compact, and the use and operation and maintenance are more convenient. The connection between the Antminer S15 mining machine and the power supply uses a clip-connected design, and the controller and the power board are still connected by flat signal cable.

https://preview.redd.it/85cz4u4c7bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab87c2f4c2943f0e9eb3dbbe2576f9d043add399

The nameplate of the mining machine body is marked with the model number, hash rate, and identification bar code. If the bottom part can increase the anti-slip mat, it is better to strengthen the stability of the mining machine when it is placed horizontally. The mining machine supports the erect and horizontal two ways. On the rack, the miner can choose the placement method according to the size of the mine rack.

https://preview.redd.it/wxavyize7bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ab2335eabb3b13731284f89805abcb131bfbda4

II. Antminer S15 installation:

The design of the Antminer S15 all-in-one machine reduces the link of the power line of the plugging and unloading machine. As long as it is placed in the rack, plug in the power cable and the network cable to complete the hardware installation.

Find the mine IP address. Antminer S15 mining machine is automatically assigned IP mode, you can enter the local router to view the IP address named "antMiner".

Or use the ant official mining machine management software BitmainMinerTool to scan the IP address of the current mining machine. You can also use the management software to set the mining pool address and worker name, update the firmware, etc. When the number of mining machines is large, you can also use the mining machine. IP report button to find the IP address of the mining machine.

To view the real-time status of a single mining machine, you need to enter the mining machine control page. First, enter the mining machine IP into the control page home page, and then enter the default user name and password (the default is root) to enter the mining machine control page.

The new mining machine needs to modify the name of the mining pool and miners, click on the “Miner Configuration” page to modify the main mining pool address and worker name, and modify the two alternate mining pool addresses and miners' names as needed. Antminer S15 has built-in standard and low-power mining modes, so you can easily select any mode mining on this page according to your needs. After each setting is completed, click “Save&Apply” to save the settings and apply.

After saving, the miner will restart the mining procedure. After about a few minutes of normal operation of the mining machine, you can enter the mining operation interface “Miner Status” to check the operation of the mining machine, including running time, hash rate, Chip status, operating frequency, PCB board and chip temperature, fan speed and other parameters information.

III. Review:

The Antminer S15 has standard mining mode and low power consumption mode. Therefore, we tested the two modes for 24 hours respectively. The test environment temperature is about 17 degrees, and the noise value is around 36 decibels.

https://preview.redd.it/2wzornwmabd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62e6e57755d70d526eeda4066a31b042473871a8

After the mining machine is turned on, the fan runs at full speed, the power consumption of the boot is about 25W and further increases slowly, and the noise level is up to 81.2 dB.

Standard mode test

Power consumption: The miner's chip is fully operational, and the control page power is 28T. The measured power consumption of the miner is 1610-1620W, which is in line with the officially announced 1596W ±7% level.

Noise: Due to the low ambient temperature, the number of fan rotations is basically stable at around 3120 rpm. The noise value of the operating environment is measured to be 76.5 decibels. The distance of the mine is 27.7 meters, and the noise level is properly controlled.

Temperature: Antminer S15 has a total of four mining boards. There are four temperature-sensing modules distributed on each calculation board. The chip temperature is at least 44 degrees and the highest is 78 degrees. Thanks to the Exposed Die package, the outlet temperature is about 42 degrees. The power outlet temperature is about 28 degrees.

https://preview.redd.it/h71plzf0bbd21.jpg?width=641&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=588728e6a87b510d5cc65eb41a1ffe80d6435f17

Because the Antminer S15 adopts the one-piece design, We also test the contact temperature of the power supply and the mining machine's power board. It can be clearly seen that the temperature values ​​of each point are different.

https://preview.redd.it/4ghcl4i3bbd21.jpg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a344917e4a3b529aef58127f5e5c8fdaa61c62fa

Hash rate: After 24 hours test in the btc.com mining pool, the average hash rate of the Antminer S15 in 24 hours was 28.56 TH/s. Thus calculate the unit energy efficiency ratio = 1620W / 28.56 ≈ 56.72W / T, and the official published data 57 J / T consistent.

Low power mode test

Power consumption: After checking the option behind “Low Power Mode” on the Antminer S15 Pool Settings page and saving the application, the miner can run in low power mode. After the power of the mining machine control page reaches 17T, the measured power consumption is up to 836.6W, and the running data meets the official data of 775W ±7% - 900W ±7%.

Noise: As the power and power consumption are reduced, the fan speed is basically stable at around 2400 rpm, the measured operating environment noise value is 77 decibels, and the distance measured by the mining machine is about 66 decibels at a distance of 2 meters. The noise level and the standard mode. At the same level.

Temperature: The four mining board chips have a minimum temperature of 25 degrees and a maximum of 62 degrees. The outlet temperature is about 30 degrees, which is slightly lower than the standard mode. The temperature of the power outlet is about 20 degrees.

https://preview.redd.it/r4f2ww96cbd21.jpg?width=641&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3051c74634ac9d98373d71e8fee3f542d455c5

Contact point temperature value between the power supply and mining machine mining board.
https://preview.redd.it/fskmubi8cbd21.jpg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1616d21af2b87bc0996f1ce388b3ab9983d33dd

Hash rate: After 24 hours of testing in the btc.com mine, the average 24-hour power was measured at 17.5TH/S. Thus calculate the unit energy efficiency ratio = 836.6W / 17.5 ≈ 47.8W / T, lower than the official published data 50 J / T.

IV. Summary:

Two built-in mining modes. The power consumption per unit of power in low-power mode is lower than 50W/T, which is better. The lower the power consumption ratio, the lower the price of the shutdown.
One machine design reduces the wire, beautiful and convenient.
Exposed Die package improves heat dissipation, increasing the number of chips per unit volume and reducing heat sinks, reducing overall weight.
The new AWP8 power supply is used, easy to assemble and disassemble.
The machine noise is lower and the temperature is lower than other mining machines.
The calculation power of the whole machine is stable and fluctuating.

Finally, exposed power connectors may cause problems if touch the iron on the shelf. Maybe it can have improvement.

The Antminer series mining machine has evolved from S1 to S15, and the computing power has evolved from S180's 180G/360W to S15's 28000G/1600W. This is not just a digital evolution, but also the ups and downs of the Bitcoin industry. The mining machine is upgrading. Bitcoin is advancing, leaving many stories in the chain, the currency circle and the mining ring than the ten-year journey of holding the currency. In the two-year life cycle of S9, S9's bitcoin mining machine market share is far ahead, and currently in the market background of the rising bitcoin computing power, the depressed bear market and more new mining machines, Whether the ant S15 can create a new benchmark for the bitcoin mining machine, time will give us the answer.

More miner and crypto reviews on: cybtc.org
Telegram:https://t.me/joinchat/LgPYnE1vPpXqYDVpPaQyxw
Discord:https://discord.gg/RfCZMNY

submitted by cybtc to BitcoinMining [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]

Decred Journal — May 2018

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

Development

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

Network

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

ASICs

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

Integrations

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

Adoption

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

Marketing

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

Events

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

Media

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

Community Discussions

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

Markets

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

Relevant External

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

About This Issue

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

New people please read this. [upvote for visibility please]

I am seeing too many new people come and and getting confused. Litecoin wiki isn't the greatest when it comes to summing up things so I will try to do things as best as I can. I will attempt to explain from what I have learned and answer some questions. Hopefully people smarter than me will also chime in. I will keep this post updated as much as I can.
Preface
Litecoin is a type to electronic currency. It is just like Bitcoin but it there are differences. Difference explained here.
If you are starting to mine now chances are that you have missed the Bitcoin mining train. If you really want your time and processing power to not go to waste you should mine LTC because the access to BTC from there is much easier.
Mining. What is it?
Let's get this straight. When making any financial commitment to this be prepared to do it with "throw away" money. Mining is all about the hashrate and is measured in KH/s (KiloHash/sec). Unlike the powerful ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) that are used to mine bitcoins using hashrates in the GH/s and even TH/s, litecoin mining has only been able to achieve at the very best MH/s. I think the highest I've seen is 130 MH/s so far. Which leads us to our next section.
Mining Hardware
While CPU mining is still a thing it is not as powerful as GPU mining. Your laptop might be able to get 1 a month. However, I encourage you to consult this list first. List of hardware comparison You will find the highest of processors can maybe pull 100 KH/s and if we put this into a litecoin mining calculator it doesn't give us much.
Another reason why you don't want to mine with your CPU is pretty simple. You are going to destroy it.
So this leaves us with GPUs. Over the past few months (and years) the HD 7950 has been the favourite because it drains less power and has a pretty good hashrate. But recently the introduction of the R9 290 (not the x) has changed the game a bit. People are getting 850 KH/s - 900 KH/s with that card. It's crazy.
Should I mine?
Honestly given the current difficulty you can make a solid rig for about $1100 with a hashrate of 1700 KH/s which would give you your investment back in about a month and a half. I am sure people out there can create something for much cheaper. Here is a good example of a setup as suggested by dystopiats
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Type Item Price
CPU AMD Sempron 145 2.8GHz Single-Core Processor $36.01 @ Amazon
Motherboard ASRock 970 EXTREME4 ATX AM3+ Motherboard $99.48 @ OutletPC
Memory Crucial Ballistix Tactical Tracer 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1866 Memory $59.99 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Video Card Sapphire Radeon HD 7950 3GB Video Card (3-Way CrossFire) $245.38 @ Newegg
Power Supply SeaSonic Platinum 860W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply $146.98 @ SuperBiiz
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available. $1078.60
Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 00:52 EST-0500
Estimated Hashrate (with GPU overclocking) : 1900 KH/s
Hardware Fundamentals
CPU - Do you need a powerful CPU? No but make sure it is a decent one. AMD CPUs are cheap to buy right now with tons of power. Feel free to use a Sempron or Celeron depending on what Motherboard you go with.
RAM - Try to get at least 4 GB so as to not run into any trouble. Memory is cheap these days. I am saying 4 GB only because of Windoze. If you are plan to run this on Linux you can even get away with less memory.
HDD Any good ol 7200 RPM hard drive will do. Make sure it is appropriate. No point in buying a 1TB hard drive. Since, this is a newbie's guide I assumed most won't know how to run linux, but incase you do you can get a USB flash drive and run linux from it thus removing the need for hard drive all toghether. (thanks dystopiats)
GPU - Consult the list of hardware of hardware I posted above. Make sure you consider the KH/s/W ratio. To me the 290 is the best option but you can skimp down to 7950 if you like.
PSU - THIS IS BLOODY IMPORTANT. Most modern GPUs are power hungry so please make sure you are well within the limits of your power consumption.
MOTHERBOARD - Ok, so a pretty popular board right now is Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 and the ASRock 970 Extreme4. Some people are even going for Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 and even the mighty Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 because it has more PCI-E slots. 6 to be exact. However you may not need that much. With risers you can get more shoved into less.
PCI-E RISERS - These are called risers. They come in x16 to x16 and x1 to x16 connections. Here is the general rule of thumb. This is very important. Always get a POWERED riser otherwise you will burn a hole in your MoBo. A powered rise as a molex connector so that additional power from PSU can be supplied.
When it comes to hardware I've provided the most basic knowledge you need. Also, take a look at cryptobader's website. This is very helpful. Please visit the mining section of Litecoin Forums and the litecoinmining subreddit for more indepth info.
Mining Software
Now that you have assembled your hardware now you need to get into a pool. But before you do that you need a mining software. There are many different ones but the one that is most popular is cgminer. Download it and make sure you read the README. It is a very robust piece of software. Please read this if you want to know more. (thanks BalzOnYer4Head)
Mining Pools
Now that your hardware and software is ready. I know nothing about solo mining other than the fact that you have to be very lucky and respectable amount of hashing power to decrypt a block. So it is better to join pools. I have been pool hopping for a bit and really liked give-me-coin previously known to the community as give-me-ltc. They have a nice mobile app and 0% pool fees. This is really a personal preference. Take a look at this list and try some yourself.
How do I connect to a pool?
Most pools will give you a tutorial on how to but the basics are as follows:
  • Signup for a pool
  • Create a worker for your account. Usually one worker per rig (Yes people have multiple rigs) is generally a good idea.
  • Create a .run file. Open up notepad and type cgminer.exe -o (address_to_the_miningpool:port_number) -u (yourusername.workername) -p (your_worker_password_if_you_made_one). Then File>Save As>runcgminer.run (Make sure the drop down is set to "All Files" and .txt document.) and save in the same folder as cgminer. That's it.
  • Double click on runcgminer.run (or whatever you named it) and have fun mining.
Mining Profitability
This game is not easy. If it was, practically everyone would be doing it. This is strictly a numbers game and there are calculations available that can help you determine your risk on your investments. 4 variables you need to consider when you are starting to mine:
Hardware cost: The cost of your physical hardware to run this whole operation.
Power: Measured in $/KwH is also known as the operating cost.
Difficulty rate: To put it in layman's terms the increase in difficulty is inversely proportional to amount of coin you can mine. The harder the difficulty the harder it is to mine coin. Right now difficulty is rising at about 18% per 3 days. This can and will change since all you miners are soon going to jump on the band wagon.
Your sanity: I am not going to tell you to keep calm and chive on because quiet frankly that is stupid. What I will tell you not to get too carried away. You will pull you hair out. Seriously.
Next thing you will need is a simple tool. A mining profitability calculator. I have two favourite ones.
coinwarz
I like this one cause it is simple. The fields are self explanatory. Try it.
bitcoinwisdom
I like this one because it is a more real life scenario calculator and more complicated one (not really). It also takes increasing difficulty into account.
Please note: This is the absolute basic info you need. If you have more questions feel free to ask and or google it!
More Below.
submitted by craeyon to litecoin [link] [comments]

What's better❓: 100 TH/s Lifetime mining OR 20 BCH refund

Hello, thats my first own topic here in Reddit :)
I've a lifetime 100 TH/s Bitcoin-Cloud-Mining-Contract from https://console.pool.bitcoin.com (Bitcoin.com Pool).
Now I have the possibility to receive a refund of ~20 BCH from my purchased contract (~$15.000).
Should I cancel the contract permanently to get now 20 BCH or it is still profitable in the future to mine with this contract with a daily fee of $28?
P.S. I can also mine Bitcoin Cash, so I think in longterm it is still better to keep the mining contract for a lifetime, or not? (because of difficulty increase...)
regards from a CryptoNewbie
 
Answer #1
Revenue Calculator: estimated 24hr for 100 TH/s incl. $0.28 per TH/s daily fee (01/04/2018):
 
how long have you had the contract and have you profited yet?
Since summer 2017, so no big minus business.
 
"Take the money", "Got paid", "cash out"...
What do you guys think with that I should convert the BitcoinCash into only FIAT? (rate BCH/USD ~700 USD) or like Aarons said ~1 BTC + 10 BCH? (BCH/BTC is really bad; 0.099 BTC) What are your arguments?
   
P.S. I'm a long time HOdler
submitted by c-r-y-p-t-o to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Historical Analogy between Brexit & the DAO and Public Blockchain on Consensus, Fork, Decentralization and Security

Brexit and the DAO Hack
What is ‘Brexit’? The term is short for “British exit” — shorthand for the UK’s exit from the EU following the referendum result on June 23 2016, this unanimous referendum contributed a profound impact on the political and economic landscape worldwide. Obviously, the referendum is a way of reaching a consensus. Six hours right after the release of Brexit, “What is the EU?” came to the top search on Google. It indicates that the unanimous referendum has done under the situation that even many people did not know what the EU was. The next day, more than one million Britons will jointly hope for a second referendum.
Code was supposed to eliminate the need to trust humans. But humans, it turns out, are tough to take out of the equation
The DAO launched on 30th April, 2016, for whatever reason, the DAO was popular, raising over $100m by 15th May, with a 28-day. By the end of the funding period, The DAO was the largest crowdfunding in history, having risen over $150m from more than 11,000 enthusiastic members. Unfortunately, by Saturday, 18th June, the attacker managed to drain more than 3.6m ether into a “child DAO” that has the same structure as The DAO. The price of ether dropped from over $20 to under $13.
Meanwhile, Vitalik Buterin of the Ethereum Foundation issued a critical update, saying that the DAO was under attack and that he had worked out a solution. in order to save The Dao investors’ losses, the final decision was make to the hard fork.
In fact, prophase middle and late stage during the crowdfunding of The DAO project, many people indicated their design flaws and called for a temporary suspension of project crowdfunding. However, due to various reasons, those warnings did not cause enough attention to The DAO project team, which triggered DAO hack. Furthermore, this is an avoidable attact, but also reflects the greed of human nature.
The Brexit in which human society has reached consensus and the DAO hack in the blockchain seem to be unrelated incidents. But it is the most intense discussion of “consensus and fork, centering and decentralization” in the blockchain field. Hopefule, this article indicates the analogy between the Brexit & the DAO and the public blockchain.
The value of consensus
The consensus makes human beings valuable, since people do not live isolated. Furthermore, strong social attributes and networking which requires exchange and communication among people on the purpose of reaching consensus. How could we reach consensus? The first level is the linguistic consensus. The second level is semantic consensus. The third level is the implementation of consensus. In a consistent language environment, common understanding, people really implement the expected conclusions could be reached. However, in practice, deviations often occur in the implementation process.
The consensus is costly, take Brexit as an example again; the referendum off the European Union is time-consuming and laborious. First of all, we must mobilize all people have a reasonable understanding; Secondly, organize people to vote; thirdly, we have collect, sort, classify, and calculate the voting information; and finally, generate the result. The seemingly simple referendum, or the process of obtaining consensus, maybe it cost more than what we think.
Blockchain consensus VS human being consensus
The blockchain is established under consensus, a solid and unchangeable true record of consensus formation is formed. Here the longest chain represents the truth, and all people will accept it. And other branches are forked. There will be many new forks in the blockchain with the chain formation process. Fork is competitive with each other contribute that only the longest one can preserve and be recognized by all. This is the common rule of blockchain consensus.
On the other hand, the opposite of consensus is “differentiation.” But what causes the differences? First of all, in the process of reaching a consensus, there is no real consensus on connotation and extension. Secondly, even after a consensus is formed, people do not actually implement the conclusions based on the consensus mechanism. These disagreements could not generate the consensus. Once a new block is generated, it is synchronized to all or most of the nodes in real time. That is, once a consensus has been formed, it needs to be ensured that it is actually implemented. Only in this way can we ensure that all blockchain networks will always have a consensus.
With time being, the DAO hack attracts more people’s attention increasingly, especially in the term of soft forking and hard fork. “Hard fork” means that all transactions will be tracked back to a point in time before they are stolen. And “soft fork” is equivalent to closing all transactions from the attacker’s address.In simple terms, through active fork techniques, good people and attackers disagree, and the attacker’s malicious transaction is not recognized by most (good) people.
Byzantine General: Centered and Decentralized
From a comprehensive and objective expect the Dao hack, The Dao is the most important experiment of Bitcoin. In a world where everyone is accustomed to centralized management, and how to achieve a decentralized management organization? This problem could not get through is the issue of “General Byzantine”, which is a classic problem that assumes that good people in Byzantine are in the majority. The generals of the Byzantine Empire’s army must all unanimously decide whether to attack a particular enemy. The problem is that these generals are geographically separated and there are traitors in the generals. Traitors can act arbitrarily to achieve the following goals:
(1) Defrauding certain generals to take offensive actions;
(2) To facilitate a decision that not all generals agree on, such as when the generals do not want to attack to facilitate offensive actions;
(3) Enchant some generals to make it impossible to make a decision. If the traitor achieves any of these goals, the result of the attack is doomed to failure, and only a fully-consensual consensus can win.
The “Byzantine General” issue is a good example based on the settlement of consensus mechanisms, involving centralization and decentralization. If it is a centralized solution, it is none other than people who collectively elect some people as the general, and then the generals come to discuss and vote until the supreme commander makes a final decision on all factors. The decentralized solution is regarding all people are generals, and everyone is directly involved in the final decision.
Furthermore, distributed system and decentralization are often confusing, and even one-sided people think that distributed is equivalent to decentralization. In fact, distribution could be centralized, and centralized may also be decentralized. For example, all voters are required to go to the same place for the referendum. It is interesting that to select representatives to make decisions or all personnel to make decisions directly. Guess please, among those two methods which one ultimately leads to better decisions? In different perspectives, the answer is also questionable.
Centralized and Decentralized result of Brexit Results
If the above problem is mapped to the field of data mining and machine learning. “All staff” corresponds to “full sample data.” The “representative” corresponds to the filtered “sample data.” The “decision made” corresponds to the “generated model.” Unexpectedly, we will find that the data model generated based on full sample data may not be of the highest quality. Instead, those models are based on screening samples are more effective. The reason is very simple that when we are using full samples, we can’t avoid introducing additional noise. Accurately speaking, the full sample is sometimes not conducive to algorithms that generate models that match the distribution of real data. When noise is removed, the new model is more accurate. This is the statistical principle why people often need to do data cleaning operations before data modeling.
This difference is particularly evident in the Brexit. We can figure out that the big differences between the northern and southern parts of the UK. Northern Scotland and much of Ireland people strongly support the retention of Europe (yellow part in the picture), while most people in the southern region opt for Brexit (blue part in the picture). From all the British (full sample), the majority of people who chose to leave the European Union occupied the majority. In this process, it is obvious that the huge contradiction between local features and global statistics. If taking a centralized or decentralized approach, the conclusion may be completely different.
https://preview.redd.it/vs339s5f5dz01.png?width=459&format=png&auto=webp&s=44fa9302be93b54ae2d8267b10c1845191dd1fef
In the blockchain domain, the main advantages of decentralization are reflected in the support of “point-to-point” direct transactions and the establishment of strong trust relationships with many weak trust nodes. In the centralized solution, the center often becomes the “bottleneck” of the entire system, and becomes the weakest link in which the system is most vulnerable to be attacked. In order for the center to have sufficient processing power, throughput, security and reliability, it si often required to purchase the very expensive equipments.
Soft fork and hard fork is not inconsistent with decentralization
What is the correlation between disagreement or fork and decentralization? There is no necessary connection between those two indeed. From the DAO hack incident point of view, due to the fork proposal was Vitalik represented by the Ethereum Foundation appealed. Therefore, people might regard that “Is this not a new center?” Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between such appeals and advocacy and true centralization. Whether people really make soft fork or hard fork depends on single people who are involved in building and operating the Ethereum network. As Vitalik stated in one of his public response that I will not stop or oppose the other’s their views or opinions in public or even lobby the miners to resist this soft fork.
Meanwhile, in the course of The DAO hack, there are a lot of rumors about whether “Ethernet blockchain is a decentralized network as it advertises” and “Ethereum blockchain will be stopped”. Because of the emergence of bitcoin mining machines and mining pools, there was a center for the calculation of bitcoin designs that were originally decentralized. These computing centers have a great impact on the Bitcoin network. Therefore, Ethereum could be carried out a new design, considering more decentralized approach, and reduce the possibility of specializing in the design and manufacture of the Ethereum mining machine in the future. The principle it adopts is very simple, which is, block calculation based on Ethereum blockchain must be based on relatively large memory. Existing miners that can perform Hash calculation directly on the bitcoin system. As a result, the cost of manufacturing Ethereum mining machines has become very expensive and centralised mining methods have been avoided as much as possible.
Of course, we must objectively treat the contrast between Bitcoin and Ethereum’s ecosystem, and Bitcoin still Take the absolute advantage. From the perspective of hash computing power, the average computational power of Bitcoin’s current network is about 1,500,000 TH/S, and Ethereum’s computational power is 4 TH/S, a 4 million-fold difference. There is also a problem of over-concentration of mining pools. Some domestic experts are optimistic about this matter. Another fact is that the vast majority of bitcoin mining pools are built in China. This is helpful for China to increase its influence in Bitcoin’s virtual world. From the point of my view, absolute centralization and absolute decentralization are undesirable; in particular, the fiery blockchain is now more based on Bitcoin’s existing blockchain design. The price increasing of Bitcoin’s is in kind of indicator that people are optimizing on blockchain technology in the future.
The DAO’s Security Alerts in the Middle and Application Layers
The most critical question that people are concerned from the DAO hack is the security issue. All security is needed to be hierarchical. As figure below indicated, in the Ethereum eco-system, the bottom level is the Taifang virtual machine — — EVM. The middle tier is a programming language or script needed to support application programming, such as Solidity, Python, Go, etc. The top level is various applications written in languages ​​such as Solidity. For example, the DAO is one of an Ethereum application. This architecture is analogous to the IT ecosystem that we are now familiar with. At the bottom level is the various operating systems people are familiar with, such as Windows, Linux, UNIX, For example, if it is a mobile ecosystem, it corresponds to Apple’s iOS and Android’s Android system. The middle tier is a variety of programming languages ​​such as Java, C++, Python, etc. The top level is a variety of applications, such as Taobao, WeChat etc.
After the hierarchy is divided, it is easy to trace back the problem. There is no necessary connection between The DAO Hack and Ethereum EVM. Just as there was a security issue when using Taobao or WeChat, and it’s crashed suddenly which could not due to the problem of Windows or IOS. However, the loopholes in the underlying system might contribute security problems in the upper application. Fortunately, in the DAO hack, security vulnerabilities did not appear in the underlying EVM, but it were origin form on recursive call vulnerability in the solidity programming. Just like there was a bug in the Java language, which led to the crash of Taobao or WeChat, this security issue is irrelevant to Windows or IOS.
In conclusion, one of the biggest problems of the public block chain is the contradiction between security and efficiency, that is to say that how to figure out the optimum balance between decentralization and efficiency? From the perspective of the public blockchain, it avoids the limitations of the intermediary institutions and establishes a peer-to-peer trust paradigm. As well as from the perspective of the alliance blockchain, its consensus approach is more based on the Byzantine fault-tolerance mechanism. Since it is multi-centered and balanced between each other, by establishing a distributed ledger, the possibility of any participants to change any records is minimal
As the international public blockchain originated from China, PCHAIN has always been committed technology driven, it’s no doubt that the native multi-chain system support larger transactions than intelligent contract platforms, and PCHAIN has been closely followed by community developers worldwide.
PCHAIN is making large-scale blockchain applications happen and enabling people to access the blockchain anytime, anywhere, as simple as accessing the Internet nowadays.
submitted by pchain_org to u/pchain_org [link] [comments]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube Lisy - nền tảng Bitcoin với pool đào mở - YouTube EMCD Bitcoin & Litecoin Mining Pool Review - YouTube mining kalkulator btc bitcoin - calculator mining bitcoin Mining Bitcoin & CryptoCurrencies using MobileMiner: How to Choose a Coin & Mining Pool

This means if you buy 50 TH/s of mining hardware your total share of the network will go DOWN every day compared to the total network hash rate. Our calculator assumes the 0.4527678% daily increase in network hash rate that has been the average daily increase over the past 6 months. Without factoring in this growth, most Bitcoin mining calculators show results that appear MUCH, MUCH more ... Bitcoin mining calculator Summary. Enter the hash rate of your Bitcoin mining hardware (mandatory). Enter additional optional information, such as pool fees, electricity costs, etc. The more information you enter, the more accurate the result will be. Accurate Bitcoin mining calculator trusted by millions of cryptocurrency miners since May 2013 - developed by an OG Bitcoin miner looking to maximize on mining profits and calculate ROI for new ASIC miners. Updated in 2020, the newest version of the Bitcoin mining calculator makes it simple and easy to quickly calculate mining profitability for your Bitcoin mining hardware. AntPool ist der größte Bitcoin-Pool in Bezug auf seine Hash-Power. Es wird von dem weltweit größten Bitcoin-Hardwarehersteller Bitmain Technologies betrieben. Ein Konto lässt sich ohne Gebühren erstellen. Was Sie benötigen, ist eine eigene Bitcoin Mining Hardware sowie eine Mining Software, die Sie später herunterladen können. Die Benutzeroberfläche ist sehr benutzerfreundlich. Die E Find out what your expected return is depending on your hash rate and electricity cost. Find out if it's profitable to mine Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, DASH or Monero. Do you think you've got what it takes to join the tough world of cryptocurrency mining?

[index] [72] [12259] [35766] [413] [720] [44925] [51197] [22512] [16621] [46660]

USB Bitcoin Miner - The Power of 1000's Computers - YouTube

Best Bitcoin Mining Pools for Mine Bitcoin BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://y... Bitcoin Mining ══ http://tiny.cc/BitcoinMining CryptoCurrency Center ══ http://tiny.cc/WB-CryptoCurrency Legit Business Opp. ══ http://tiny.cc/Y-Biz... SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE HOW MUCH - http://shorturl.at/arBHL GekkoScience NewPac USB Miner - https://bit.ly/2RIQgdX GekkoScience 8 Port USB Hub - https://bit.ly/2x... This video is all about Mining . We discuss how mining in bitcoin works and the differences between SOLO MINING VS MINING POOLS. Hope this video brings you a lot of value! Let´s keep on learning ... cara menghitung pendapatan btc bitcoin. This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue

#