#1 Bitcoin Mining Calculator - ACCURATE! (2020 Updated)

How are people getting into bitcoin mining these days? The Initial cost per GH/s seems too high.

Using this calculator: http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/2b4832e52b It seems that only the MOST expensive of hardware will get you past break even, and still be valuable for a few months after you start mining with it.
I've been looking at BFL's Monarch cards, which, I think are the best GH/s/$ value right now... except... no one has one. Lots of shenanigans going on with BFL, I feel.
Anyway, the USB miners are super convenient and scalable (doesn't require ridiculous hardware to keep adding more of, such as an external PCIe case). But they charge waaay too much for those, don't they? I luckily got one and a half for free with my amazon points, but 700MH/s for $10 (http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/cb75fc83ca) doesn't get me much very fast.
Each additional USB miner I get would look like this: http://mining.thegenesisblock.com/a/4a740e78a4
I've seen that there are some GH/s miners that are 0.7 to 1 BTC, but those alse seem expensive for the speed.
I understand that the increasing difficulty makes it so that you have to invest in some significant hardware initially, then break even, and hope for enough profit to buy better cards with a better GH/s/$ ratio.
I feel like the only way to really get into mining is to actually be making the asic cards/chips yourself. :-\ It seems like the only way to get any traction, and be able to upgrade your setup over time is to be achieving around 100GH/s.
How are you guys doing it?
submitted by DerNalia to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Mining and Dogecoin - Some FAQs

Hey shibes,
I see a lot of posts about mining lately and questions about the core wallet and how to mine with it, so here are some facts!
Feel free to add information to that thread or correct me if I did any mistake.

You downloaded the core wallet

Great! After a decade it probably synced and now you are wondering how to get coins? Bad news: You don't get coins by running your wallet, even running it as a full node. Check what a full node is here.
Maybe you thought so, because you saw a very old screenshot of a wallet, like this (Version 1.2). This version had a "Dig" tab where you can enter your mining configuration. The current version doesn't have this anymore, probably because it doesn't make sense anymore.

You downloaded a GPU/CPU miner

Nice! You did it, even your antivirus system probably went postal and you started covering all your webcams... But here is the bad news again: Since people are using ASIC miners, you just can't compete with your CPU hardware anymore. Even with your more advanced GPU you will have a hard time. The hashrate is too high for a desktop PC to compete with them. The blocks should be mined every 1 minute (or so) and that's causing the difficulty to go up - and we are out... So definitly check what is your hashrate while you are mining, you would need about 1.5 MH/s to make 1 Doge in 24 hours!

Mining Doge

Let us start with a quote:
"Dogecoin Core 1.8 introduces AuxPoW from block 371,337. AuxPoW is a technology which enables miners to submit work done while mining other coins, as work on the Dogecoin block chain."
- langerhans
What does this mean? You could waste your hashrate only on the Dogecoin chain, probably find never a block, but when, you only receive about 10.000 Dogecoins, currently worth about $25. Or you could apply your hashrate to LTC and Doge (and probably even more) at the same time. Your change of solving the block (finding the nonce) is your hashrate divided by the hashrat in sum - and this is about the same for Doge and LTC. This means you will always want to submit your work to all chains available!

Mining solo versus pool

So let's face it - mining solo won't get you anywhere, so let's mine on a pool! If you have a really bad Hashrate, please consider that: Often you need about $1 or $2 worth of crypto to receive a payout (without fees). This means, you have to get there. With 100 MH/s on prohashing, it takes about 6 days, running 24/7 to get to that threshold. Now you can do the math... 1 MH/s = 1000 KH/s, if you are below 1 MH/s, you probably won't have fun.

Buying an ASIC

You found an old BTC USB-miner with 24 GH/s (1 GH/s = 1000 MH/s) for $80 bucks - next stop lambo!? Sorry, bad news again, this hashrate is for SHA-256! If you want to mine LTC/Doge you will need a miner using scrypt with quite lower numbers on the hashrate per second, so don't fall for that. Often when you have a big miner (= also loud), you get more Hashrate per $ spent on the miner, but most will still run on a operational loss, because the electricity is too expensive and the miners will be outdated soon again. Leading me to my next point...

Making profit

You won't make money running your miner. Just do the math: What if you would have bougth a miner 1 year ago? Substract costs for electricity and then compare to: What if you just have bought coins. In most cases you would have a greater profit by just buying coins, maybe even with a "stable" coin like Doges.

Cloud Mining

Okay, this was a lot of text and you are still on the hook? Maybe you are desperated enough to invest in some cloud mining contract... But this isn't a good idea either, because most of such contracts are scams based on a ponzi scheme. You often can spot them easy, because they guarantee way to high profits, or they fake payouts that never happened, etc.
Just a thought: If someone in a subway says to you: Give me $1 and lets meet in one year, right here and I give you $54,211,841, you wouldn't trust him and if some mining contract says they will give you 5% a day it is basically the same.
Also rember the merged mining part. Nobody would offer you to mine Doges, they would offer you to buy a hashrate for scrypt that will apply on multiple chains.

Alternative coins

Maybe try to mine a coin where you don't have ASICs yet, like Monero and exchange them to Doge. If somebody already tried this - feel free to add your thoughts!

Folding at Home (Doge)

Some people say folding at home (FAH - https://www.dogecoinfah.com/) still the best. I just installed the tool and it says I would make 69.852 points a day, running on medium power what equates to 8 Doges. It is easy, it was fun, but it isn't much.
Thanks for reading
_nformant
submitted by _nformant to dogecoin [link] [comments]

Obelisk's Sia ASICs - Full Details

https://obelisk.tech
Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working.
The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018.
Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule.
The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less.
The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later.
We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much.
We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference.
The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month).
The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk.
Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers.
Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies.
We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Profitability: How Long Does it Take to Mine One Bitcoin in 2019?

When it comes to Bitcoin (BTC) mining, the major questions on people’s minds are “how profitable is Bitcoin mining” and “how long would it take to mine one Bitcoin?” To answer these questions, we need to take an in-depth look at the current state of the Bitcoin mining industry — and how it has changed — over the last several years.
Bitcoin mining is, essentially, the process of participating in Bitcoin’s underlying security mechanism — known as proof-of-work — to help secure the Bitcoin blockchain. In return, participants receive compensation in bitcoins (BTC).
When you participate in Bitcoin mining, you are essentially searching for blocks by crunching complex cryptographic challenges using your mining hardware. Once a block is discovered, new transactions are recorded and verified within the block and the block discoverer receives the block rewards — currently set at 12.5 BTC — as well as the transactions fees for the transactions included within the block.
Once the maximum supply of 21 million Bitcoins has been mined, no further Bitcoins will ever come into existence. This property makes Bitcoin deflationary, something which many argue will inevitably increase the value of each Bitcoin unit as it becomes more scarce due to increased global adoption.
The limited supply of Bitcoin is also one of the reasons why Bitcoin mining has become so popular. In previous years, Bitcoin mining proved to be a lucrative investment option — netting miners with several fold returns on their investment with relatively little effort.
bitcoin mining hardware
Mining Hardware
The mining hardware you choose will mostly depend on your circumstances — in terms of budget, location and electricity costs. Since the amount of hashing power you can dedicate to the mining process is directly correlated with how much Bitcoin you will mine per day, it is wise to ensure your hardware is still competitive in 2019.
Bitcoin uses SHA256 as its mining algorithm. Because of this, only hardware compatible with this algorithm can be used to mine Bitcoin. Although it is technically possible to mine Bitcoin on your current computer hardware — using your CPU or GPU — this will almost certainly not generate a positive return on your investment and you may end up damaging your device.
The most cost-effective way to mine Bitcoin in 2019 is using application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) mining hardware. These are specially-designed machines that offer much higher performance per watt than typical computers and have been an absolutely essential purchase for anybody looking to get into Bitcoin mining since the first Avalon ASICs were shipped in 2013.
When it comes to selecting Bitcoin mining hardware, there are several main parameters to consider — though the importance of each of these may vary based on personal circumstances and budget.
Performance per Watt
When it comes to Bitcoin mining, performance per watt is a measure of how many gigahashes per watt a machine is capable of and is, hence, a simple measure of its efficiency. Since electricity costs are likely to be one of the largest expenses when mining Bitcoin, it is usually a good idea to ensure that you are getting good performance per watt out of your hardware.
Ideally, your mining hardware would be highly efficient, allowing it to mine Bitcoin with lower energy requirements — though this will need to be balanced with acquisition costs, as often the most efficient hardware is also the most expensive. This means it may take longer to see a return on investment.
In countries with cheap electricity, performance per watt is often less of a concern than acquisition costs and price-performance ratio. In most countries, operating outdated mining hardware is typically cost prohibitive, as energy costs outweigh the income generated by the mining equipment.
However, this may not be the case for those operating in countries with extremely cheap electricity — such as Kuwait and Venezuela — as even older equipment can still be profitable. Similarly, miners with a free energy surplus, such as from wind or solar electric generators, can benefit from the minimal gains offered by still running outdated hardware.
Longevity
The lifetime of mining hardware also plays a critical role in determining how profitable your mining venture will be. It’s always a good idea to do whatever possible to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible.
Since mining equipment tends to run at a full (or almost full) load for extended periods, they also tend to break down and fail more frequently than most electronics — which can seriously damage your profitability. Equipment failure is even more common when purchasing second-hand equipment. Since warranty claims are often challenging, it can often take a long time to receive a warranty replacement.
Price-Performance Ratio
In many cases, one of the major criteria used to select mining hardware is the price-performance ratio — a measure of how much performance a machine outputs per unit price. In the case of cryptocurrency mining hardware, this is commonly expressed as gigahashes per dollar or GH/$.
Under ideal circumstances, the mining hardware would have a high price-performance ratio, ensuring you get a lot of bang for your buck. However, this must also be considered in combination with the acquisition costs and the expected lifetime of the machine — since the absolute most powerful machines are not always the cheapest or the most energy efficient.
Acquisition Costs
Acquisition costs are almost always the biggest barrier to entry for most Bitcoin miners since most top-end mining hardware costs several thousand dollars. This problem is further compounded by the fact that many hardware manufacturers offer discounts for bulk purchases, allowing those with deeper pockets to achieve a better price-performance ratio.
Acquisition costs include all the costs involved in purchasing any mining equipment, including hardware costs, shipping costs, import duties, and any further costs. For example, many ASIC miners do not include a power supply — which can be another considerable expense, since the 1,000W+ power supplies usually required tend to cost several hundred dollars alone.
Ensuring your equipment runs smoothly can also add in additional costs, such as cooling and maintenance expenses. In addition, some miners may want to invest in uninterruptible power supplies to ensure their hardware keeps running — even if the power fails temporarily.
asic mining
Current Generation Hardware
One of the most recent additions to the Bitcoin mining hardware market is the Ebang Ebit E11++, which was released in October 2018. Using a 10nm fabrication process for its processors, the Ebit E11++ is able to achieve one of the highest hash rates on the market at 44TH/s.
In terms of efficiency, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is arguably the best on the market, offering 44TH/s of hash rate while drawing just 1,980W of power, offering 22.2GH/W performance. However, as of writing, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is out of stock until March 31, 2019 — while its price of $2,024 (excluding shipping) may make it prohibitively expensive for those first getting involved with Bitcoin mining.
Another popular choice is the ASICminer 8 Nano, a machine released in October 2018 that offers 44TH/s for $3,900 excluding shipping. The ASICminer 8 Nano draws 2,100W of power, giving it an efficiency of almost 21GH/W — slightly lower than the Ebit E11++ while costing almost double the price. However, unlike the E11++, the 8 Nano is actually in stock and available to purchase.
ASICminer also offers the 8 Nano Pro, a machine launched in mid-2018 that offers 80 TH/s of hash rate for $9,500 (excluding shipping). However, unlike the Ebit E11++ and 8 Nano, the minimum order quantity for the 8 Nano Pro is curiously set at five, meaning you will need to lay out a minimum of $47,500 in order to actually get your hands on one (or five).
While the 8 Nano Pro doesn’t offer the same performance per watt as the Ebit E11+ or AICMiner 8 Nano, it is one of the quieter miners on this list, making it more suitable for a home or office environment. That being said, the ASICminer 8 Nano Pro is easily the most expensive miner per TH on this list — costing a whopping $118.75/TH, compared to the $46/TH offered by the E11++ and $88.64 offered by the 8 Nano.
The latest hardware on this list is the Innosilicon T3 43T, which is currently available for pre-order at $2,279, and estimated to ship in March 2019. Offering 43TH/s of performance at 2,100W, the T3 43T comes in at an efficiency of 20.4GH/W, which is around 10 percent less energy efficient than the Ebit E11++.
The T3 43T also has a minimum order quantity of three units, making the minimum acquisition cost $6837 + shipping for preorders. All in all, the T3 43T is more costly and less efficient than the E11++ but may arrive slightly earlier since Ebang will not ship the E11++ units until at least end March 29, 2019.
Finally, this list would not be complete without including Bitmain’s latest offering, the Antminer S15-28TH/s, which — as its name suggests — offers 28TH/s of hash power while drawing just under 1600W at the wall. The Antminer S15 is one of the only SHA256 miners to use 7nm processors, making it somewhat smaller than some of the other devices on this list.
Like most pieces of top-end Bitcoin mining hardware, the Antminer S15 27TH/s model is currently sold out, with current orders not shipping until mid-February 2019. However, the S15 is offered at a significantly lower price than many of its competitors at just $1020 (excluding shipping), with no minimum quantity restriction. At these rates, the Antminer comes in at just $37.78/TH — though its energy efficiency is a much less impressive 17.5GH/W.
Mining Hardware Mining Hardware Comparison
Performance (GH/W) Price Performance Ratio ($/TH)
Ebang Ebit E11++ 22.2GH/W $46/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano 21GH/W $88.64/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano Pro 19GH/W $118.75/TH
Innosilicon T3 43T 20.4GH/W $53/TH
Antminer S15-28TH/s 17.5GH/W $37.78/TH
How To Select a Good Mining Pool
Mining pools are platforms that allow miners to pool their resources together to achieve a higher collective hash rate — which, in turn, allows the collective to mine more blocks than they would be able to achieve alone.
Typically, these mining pools will distribute block rewards to contributing miners based on the proportion of the hash rate they supply. If a pool contributing a total of 20 TH/s of hash rate successfully mines the next block, a user responsible for 10 percent of this hash rate will receive 10 percent of the 12.5 BTC reward.
Pools essentially allow smaller miners to compete with large private mining organizations by ensuring that the collective hash rate is high enough to successfully mine blocks on regular basis. Without operating through a mining pool, many miners would be unlikely to discover any blocks at all — due to only contributing a tiny fraction of the overall Bitcoin hash rate.
While it is quite possible to be successful mining without a pool, this typically requires an extremely large mining operation and is usually not recommended — unless you have enough hash rate to mine blocks on a regular basis.
Although it is technically possible to discover blocks mining solo and keep the entire 12.5 BTC reward for yourself, the odds of this actually occurring are practically zero — making pool collaboration practically the only way to compete in 2019 and beyond.
Selecting the best pool for you can be a challenging job since the vast majority of pools are quite similar and offer similar features and comparable fees. Because of this, we have broken down the qualities you should be looking for in a new pool into four categories; reputation, hash rate, pool fees, and usability/features:
Reputation
The reputation of a pool is one of the most important factors in selecting the pool that is best for you. Well-reputed pools will tend to be much larger than newer or less well-established pools since few pools with a poor reputation can stand the test of time.
Well-reputed pools also tend to be more transparent about their operation, many of which provide tools to ensure that each user is getting the correct reward based on the hash rate contributed. By using only pools with a great reputation, you also ensure your hash rate is not being used for nefarious purposes — such as powering a 51 percent attack.
When comparing a list of pools that appear suitable for you, it is a wise move to read their user reviews before making your choice — ensuring you don’t end up mining at a pool that steals your hard-fought earnings.
Hash Rate
When it comes to mining Bitcoin, the probability of discovering the next block is directly related to the amount of hashing power you contribute to the network. Because of this, one of the major features you should be considering when selecting your pool is its total hash rate — which is often closely related to the proportion of new blocks mined by the pool
Since the total hash rate of a pool is directly related to how quickly it discovers new blocks, this means the largest pools tend to discover a relative majority of blocks — leading to more regular rewards. However, the very largest pools also tend the have higher fees but often make up for this with sheer success and additional features.
Sometimes, some of the largest pools have a minimum hash rate requirement ù leaving some of the smaller miners left out of the loop. Although smaller pools typically have more relaxed requirements with reduced performance thresholds, these pools may be only slightly more profitable than mining solo.
Pool Fees
When choosing a suitable pool, typically one of the major considerations is its fees. Typically, most pools will charge a small fee that is deducted from your earnings and is usually around 1-2 percent — but sometimes slightly lower or higher.
There are also pools that offer 0 percent fees. However, these are often much smaller than the major pools and tend to make their money in a different way — such as through monthly subscriptions or donations.
Ideally, you will choose the pool that offers the best balance of fees to other features. Usually, the pool with the absolute lowest fees is not the best choice. Additionally, pools with the lowest fees often have the highest withdrawal minimums — making pool hopping uneconomical for most.
Usability and Features
When first starting out with Bitcoin mining, learning how to set up a pool and navigating through the settings can be a challenge. Because of this, several pools target their services to newer users by offering a simple to navigate user interface and providing detailed learning resources and prompt customer support.
However, for more experienced miners, simple pools don’t tend to offer a variety of features needed to maximize profitability. For example, although many mining pools focus their entire hash rate towards mining a single cryptocurrency, some are large enough to offer additional options — allowing users to mine other SHA256 coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) or Fantom if they choose.
These pools are technically more challenging to use and mostly designed for those familiar with mining, happy to hop from coin to coin mining whichever is most profitable at the time. There are even some exchanges that automatically direct their combined hash rate at the most profitable cryptocurrency — taking the guesswork out of the equation.
bitcoin mining pool
Best Mining Pools for 2019
The Bitcoin mining pool industry has a large number of players, but the vast majority of the Bitcoin hash rate is concentrated within just a few pools. Currently, there are dozens of suitable pools to choose from — but we have selected just a few of the best to help get you started on your journey.
Slushpool was the first Bitcoin mining pool released, being launched way back in 2010 under the name “Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server.” Since then, Slushpool has grown into one of the most popular pools around — currently accounting for just under 10 percent of the total Bitcoin hash rate.
Although Slushpool isn’t one of the very largest pools, it does offer a newbie-friendly interface alongside more advanced features for those that need them. The pool has moderately high fees of 2 percent but offers servers in several countries — including the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan — giving it a good balance of fees to features.
BTC.com is another potential candidate for your pool and currently stands as the largest public Bitcoin mining pool. It is responsible for mining around 17 percent of new blocks. Being the largest public mining pool provides users with a sense of security, ensuring blocks are mined regularly and a stable income is made.
Image courtesy of Blockchain.info.
BTC.com is owned by Bitmain, a company that manufacturers mining hardware, and charges a 1.5 percent fees — placing it squarely in the middle-tier in terms of fees. Unlike other platforms, BTC.com uses its own payment structure known as FPPS (Full Pay Per Share), which means miners also receive a share of the transaction fees included within mined blocks — making it slightly more profitable than standard payment per share (PPS) pools.
Another great option is Antpool, a mining pool that supports mining services for 10 different cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Litecoin (LTC) and Ethereum (ETH). AntPool frequently trades places with BTC.com as the largest Bitcoin mining pool. However, as of this writing, it occupies the title of the third-largest public mining pool.
What sets Antpool apart from other pools is the ability to choose your own fee system — including PPS, PPS+, and PPLNS. If you choose PPLNS, using Antpool is free but you will not receive any transaction fees from any blocks mined. Antpool also offers regular payouts and has a low minimum payout of just 0.001 BTC, making it suitable for smaller miners.
Last on the list of the best Bitcoin mining pools in 2019 is the Bitcoin.com mining pool. Although this is one of the smaller pools available, the Bitcoin.com pool has some redeeming features that make it worth a look. It offers mining contracts, allowing you to test out Bitcoin mining before investing in mining equipment of your own. According to Bitcoin.com, they are the highest paying Pay Per Share (PPS) pool in the world, offering up to 98 percent block rewards as well as automatic switching between BTC and BCH mining to optimize profitability.

Electricity Costs
While your mining hardware is most important when it comes to how much BTC you can earn when mining, your electricity costs are usually the largest additional expense. With electricity costs often varying dramatically between countries, ensuring you are on the best cost-per-KWh plan available will help to keep costs down when mining.
Most commonly, large mining operations will be set up in countries where electricity costs are the lowest — such as Iceland, India, and Ukraine. Since China has one of the lowest energy costs in the world, it was previously the epicenter of Bitcoin mining. However, since the government began cracking down on cryptocurrencies, it has largely fallen out of favor with miners.
Technically, Venezuela is one of the cheapest countries in the world in terms of electricity, with the government heavily subsidizing these energy costs — while Bitcoin offers an escape from the hyperinflation suffered by the Venezuelan bolivar. Despite this, importing mining hardware into the country is a costly endeavor, making it impractical for many people.
Finding ways to lower your electricity costs is one of the best ways to improve your mining profitability. This can include investing in renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind — which can yield increased profitability over the long term.
if you are looking to buy bitcoin mining equipment here is some links:

Model Antminer S17 Pro (56Th) from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 56Th/s for a power consumption of 2385W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s17-pro-56th-copy/?wpam_id=17
Model Antminer S9K from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 14Th/s for a power consumption of 1323W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s9k-14-th-s/?wpam_id=17
Model T2T 30Tfrom Innosilicon mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 30Th/s for a power consumption of 2200W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/innosilicon-t2t-30t/?wpam_id=17
mining wholesale website:
https://miningwholesale.eu/?wpam_id=17
submitted by mohamadk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

howmanyconfs.com - How does the security of different Proof-of-Work blockchains compare to Bitcoin?

https://howmanyconfs.com
Original post in Bitcoin here: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/biokgy/howmanyconfscom_how_does_the_security_of/

https://github.com/lukechilds/howmanyconfs.com/raw/mastescreenshot.png

How are these values calculated?

It's easy to compare blockchain hashrates when the Proof-of-Work algorithm is the same. For example if Bitcoin has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s and Bitcoin Cash has a hashrate of SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s, it's easy to see that for a given period of time the Bitcoin blockchain will have 20x (40/2) the amount of work securing it than the Bitcoin Cash blockchain. Or to say that differently, you need to wait for 20x more Bitcoin Cash confirmations before an equivalent amount of work has been done compared to the Bitcoin blockchain. So 6 Bitcoin confirmations would be roughly equivalent to 120 Bitcoin Cash confirmations in the amount of work done.
However if the Proof-of-Work algorithms are different, how can we compare the hashrate? If we're comparing Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) against Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s), the hashes aren't equal, one round of SHA-256 is not equivalent to one round of Scrypt.
What we really want to know is how much energy is being consumed to provide the current hash rate. Literal energy, as in joules or kilowatt hours. It would be great if we had a universal metric across blockchains like kWh/s to measure immutability.
However that's fairly hard to calculate, we need to know the average power consumption of the average device used to mine. For GPU/CPU mined Proof-of-Work algorithms this varies greatly. For ASIC mined Proof-of-Work algorithms it varies less, however it's likely that ASIC manufacturers are mining with next generation hardware long before the public is made aware of them, which we can't account for.
There's no automated way to get this data and no reliable data source to scrape it from. We'd need to manually research all mining hardware and collate the data ourself. And as soon as newer mining hardware comes out our results will be outdated.
Is there a simpler way to get an estimated amount of work per blockchain in a single metric we can use for comparisons?
Yeah, there is, we can use NiceHash prices to estimate the cost in $ to secure a blockchain for a given timeframe. This is directly comparable across blockchains and should be directly proportionate to kWh/s, because after all, the energy needs to be paid for in $.
How can we estimate this?
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/s).
The $/s metric may not be that accurate. Miners will mark up the cost when reselling on NiceHash and we're making the assumption that NiceHash supply is infinite. You can't actually rent 100% of Bitcoin's hashpower from NiceHash, there isn't enough supply.
However that's not really an issue for this metric, we aren't trying to calculate the theoretical cost to rent an additional 100% of the hashrate, we're trying to get a figure that allows us to compare the cost of the current total hashrate accross blockchains. Even if the exact $ value we end up with is not that accurate, it should still be proportionate to kWh/s. This means it's still an accurate metric to compare the difference in work done over a given amount of time between blockchains.
So how do we compare these values between blockchains?
Once we've done the above calculations and got a $/s cost for each blockchain, we just need to factor in the average block time and calculate the total $ cost for a given number of confirmations. Then see how much time is required on the other blockchain at it's $/s value to equal the total cost.
So to calculate how many Litecoin confirmations are equivalent to 6 Bitcoin confirmations we would do:
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.

Notes

$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.

The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs.
For example:
This is does not mean you could do a 51% attack on Bitcoin and roll back 6 blocks for a cost of $360,000. An attack like that would be much more expensive.
The $/s value is a metric to compare the amount of work at the current hashrate between blockchains. It is not the same as the cost to add hashrate to the network.
When adding hashrate to a network the cost will not scale linearly with hashrate. It will jump suddenly at certain intervals.
For example, once you've used up the available hashrate on NiceHash you need to add the costs of purchasing ASICs, then once you've bought all the ASICs in the world, you'd need to add the costs of fabricating your own chips to keep increasing hashrate.

These metrics are measuring "work done", not security.

More "work done" doesn't necessarily mean "more security".
For example take the following two blockchains:
Bitcoin Cash has a higher $/s value than Zcash so we can deduce it has more "work done" over a given timeframe than Zcash. More kWh/s are required to secure it's blockchain. However does that really mean it's safer?
Zcash is the dominant blockchain for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm (Equihash). Whereas Bitcoin Cash isn't, it uses the same algorithm as Bitcoin. In fact just 5% of Bitcoin's hashrate is equivalent to all of Bitcoin Cash's hashrate.
This means the cost of a 51% attack against Bitcoin Cash could actually be much lower than a 51% attack against Zcash, even though you need to aquire more kWh/s of work, the cost to aquire those kWh/s will likely be lower.
To attack Bitcoin Cash you don't need to acquire any hardware, you just need to convince 5% of the Bitcoin hashrate to lend their SHA-256 hashpower to you.
To attack Zcash, you would likely need to fabricate your own Equihash ASICs, as almost all the Equihash mining hardware in the world is already securing Zcash.

Accurately calculating security is much more complicated.

These metrics give a good estimated value to compare the hashrate accross different Proof-of-Work blockchains.
However to calculate if a payment can be considered "finalised" involves many more variables.
You should factor in:
If the cryptocurrency doesn't dominate the Proof-of-Work it can be attacked more cheaply.
If the market cap or trading volume is really low, an attacker may crash the price of the currency before they can successfully double spend it and make a profit. Although that's more relevant in the context of exchanges rather than individuals accepting payments.
If the value of the transaction is low enough, it may cost more to double spend than an attacker would profit from the double spend.
Ultimately, once the cost of a double spend becomes higher than an attacker can expect to profit from the double spend, that is when a payment can probably be considered "finalised".
submitted by dyslexiccoder to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review


Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review

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

About the asicpower AP9-SHA256

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

Power Supply

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

Power Consumption

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

Profitability

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

Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?

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

Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?

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

Conclusion

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

Decred Journal — June 2018

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

Development

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

Network

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

ASICs

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

Integrations

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

Adoption

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

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

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

Community Discussions

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

Markets

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

Relevant External

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

About This Issue

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

Decred Journal – September 2018

Note: you can read this on GitHub (link), Medium (link) or old Reddit (link).

Development

Final version 1.3.0 of the core software was released bringing all the enhancements reported last month to the rest of the community. The groundwork for SPV (simplified payment verification) is complete, another reduction of fees is being deployed, and performance stepped up once again with a 50% reduction in startup time, 20% increased sync speed and more than 3x faster peer delivery of block headers (a key update for SPV). Decrediton's integrations of SPV and Politeia are open for testing by experienced users. Read the full release notes and get the downloads on GitHub. As always, don't forget to verify signatures.
dcrd: completed several steps towards multipeer downloads, improved introduction to the software in the main README, continued porting cleanups and refactoring from upstream btcd.
Currently in review are initial release of smart fee estimator and a change to UTXO set semantics. The latter is a large and important change that provides simpler handling, and resolves various issues with the previous approach. A lot of testing and careful review is needed so help is welcome.
Educational series for new Decred developers by @matheusd added two episodes: 02 Simnet Setup shows how to automate simnet management with tmux and 03 Miner Reward Invalidation explains block validity rules.
Finally, a pull request template with a list of checks was added to help guide the contributors to dcrd.
dcrwallet: bugfixes and RPC improvements to support desktop and mobile wallets.
Developers are welcome to comment on this idea to derive stakepool keys from the HD wallet seed. This would eliminate the need to backup and restore redeem scripts, thus greatly improving wallet UX. (missed in July issue)
Decrediton: bugfixes, refactoring to make the sync process more robust, new loading animations, design polishing.
Politeia: multiple improvements to the CLI client (security conscious users with more funds at risk might prefer CLI) and security hardening. A feature to deprecate or timeout proposals was identified as necessary for initial release and the work started. A privacy enhancement to not leak metadata of ticket holders was merged.
Android: update from @collins: "Second test release for dcrandroid is out. Major bugs have been fixed since last test. Latest code from SPV sync has been integrated. Once again, bug reports are welcome and issues can be opened on GitHub". Ask in #dev room for the APK to join testing.
A new security page was added that allows one to validate addresses and to sign/verify messages, similar to Decrediton's Security Center. Work on translations is beginning.
Overall the app is quite stable and accepting more testers. Next milestone is getting the test app on the app store.
iOS: the app started accepting testers last week. @macsleven: "the test version of Decred Wallet for iOS is available, we have a link for installing the app but the builds currently require your UDID. Contact either @macsleven or @raedah with your UDID if you would like to help test.".
Nearest goal is to make the app crash free.
Both mobile apps received new design themes.
dcrdata: v3.0 was released for mainnet! Highlights: charts, "merged debits" view, agendas page, Insight API support, side chain tracking, Go 1.11 support with module builds, numerous backend improvements. Full release notes here. This release featured 9 contributors and development lead @chappjc noted: "This collaboration with @raedahgroup on our own block explorer and web API for @decredproject has been super productive.".
Up next is supporting dynamic page widths site wide and deploying new visual blocks home page.
Trezor: proof of concept implementation for Trezor Model T firmware is in the works (previous work was for Model One).
Ticket splitting: updated to use Go modules and added simnet support, several fixes.
docs: beginner's guide overhaul, multiple fixes and cleanups.
decred.org: added 3rd party wallets, removed inactive PoW pools and removed web wallet.
@Richard-Red is building a curated list of Decred-related GitHub repositories.
Welcome to new people contributing for the first time: @klebe, @s_ben, @victorguedes, and PrimeDominus!
Dev activity stats for September: 219 active PRs, 197 commits, 28.7k added and 18.8k deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 4-10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: started and ended the month around 75 PH/s, hitting a low of 60.5 and a new high of 110 PH/s. BeePool is again the leader with their share varying between 23-54%, followed by F2Pool 13-30%, Coinmine 4-6% and Luxor 3-5%. As in previous months, there were multiple spikes of unidentified hashrate.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 98 DCR (+2.4). The price varied between 95.7 and 101.9 DCR. Locked DCR amount was 3.86-3.96 million DCR, or 45.7-46.5% of the supply.
Nodes: there are 201 public listening nodes and 325 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 5% are v1.4.0(pre) dev builds (+3%), 30% on v1.3.0 (+25%), 42% on v1.2.0 (-20%), 15% on v1.1.2 (-7%), 6% on v1.1.0. More than 76% of nodes run v1.2.0 and higher and therefore support client filters. Data as of Oct 1.

ASICs

Obelisk posted two updates on their mailing list. 70% of Batch 1 units are shipped, an extensive user guide is available, Obelisk Scanner application was released that allows one to automatically update firmware. First firmware update was released and bumped SC1 hashrate by 10-20%, added new pools and fixed multiple bugs. Next update will focus on DCR1. It is worth a special mention that the firmware source code is now open! Let us hope more manufacturers will follow this example.
A few details about Whatsminer surfaced this month. The manufacturer is MicroBT, also known as Bitwei and commonly misspelled as Bitewei. Pangolinminer is a reseller, and the model name is Whatsminer D1.
Bitmain has finally entered Decred ASIC space with their Antminer DR3. Hash rate is 7.8 TH/s while pulling 1410 W, at the price of $673. These specs mean it has the best GH/W and GH/USD of currently sold miners until the Whatsminer or others come out, although its GH/USD of 11.6 already competes with Whatsminer's 10.5. Discussed on Reddit and bitcointalk, unboxing video here.

Integrations

Meet our 17th voting service provider: decredvoting.com. It is operated by @david, has 2% fee and supports ticket splitting. Reddit thread is here.
For a historical note, the first VSP to support ticket splitting was decredbrasil.com:
@matheusd started tests on testnet several months ago. I contacted him so we could integrate with the pool in June this year. We set up the machine in July and bought the first split ticket on mainnet, using the decredbrasil pool, on July 19. It was voted on July 30. After this first vote on mainnet, we opened the tests to selected users (with more technical background) on the pool. In August we opened the tests to everyone, and would call people who want to join to the #ticket_splitting channel, or to our own Slack (in Portuguese, so mostly Brazilian users). We have 28 split tickets already voted, and 16 are live. So little more than 40 split tickets total were bought on decredbrasil pool. (@girino in #pos-voting)
KuCoin exchange listed DCBTC and DCETH pairs. To celebrate their anniversary they had a 99% trading fees discount on DCR pairs for 2 weeks.
Three more wallets integrated Decred in September:
ChangeNow announced Decred addition to their Android app that allows accountless swaps between 150+ assets.
Coinbase launched informational asset pages for top 50 coins by market cap, including Decred. First the pages started showing in the Coinbase app for a small group of testers, and later the web price dashboard went live.

Adoption

The birth of a Brazilian girl was registered on the Decred blockchain using OriginalMy, a blockchain proof of authenticity services provider. Read the full story in Portuguese and in English.

Marketing

Advertising report for September is ready. Next month the graphics for all the ads will be changing.
Marketing might seem quiet right now, but a ton is actually going on behind the scenes to put the right foundation in place for the future. Discovery data are being analyzed to generate a positioning strategy, as well as a messaging hierarchy that can guide how to talk about Decred. This will all be agreed upon via consensus of the community in the work channels, and materials will be distributed.
Next, work is being done to identify the right PR partner to help with media relations, media training, and coordination at events. While all of this is coming up to speed, we believe the website needs a refresher reflecting the soon to be agreed upon messaging, plus a more intuitive architecture to make it easier to navigate. (@Dustorf)

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:
We'll begin shortly reviewing conferences and events planned for the first half of 2019. Highlights are sure to include The North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami (Jan 16-18) and Consensus in NYC (May 14-16). If you have suggestions of events or conferences Decred should attend, please share them in #event_planning. In 2019, we would like to expand our presence in Europe, Asia, and South America, and we're looking for community members to help identify and staff those events. (@Dustorf)

Media

August issue of Decred Journal was translated to Russian. Many thanks to @DZ!
Rency cryptocurrency ratings published a report on Decred and incorporated a lot of feedback from the community on Reddit.
September issue of Chinese CCID ratings was published (snapshot), Decred is still at the bottom.
Videos:
Featured articles:
Articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats:
Comm systems news: Several work channels were migrated to Matrix, #writers_room is finally bridged.
Highlights:
Twitter: why decentralized governance and funding are necessary for network survival and the power of controlling the narrative; learning about governance more broadly by watching its evolution in cryptocurrency space, importance of community consensus and communications infrastructure.
Reddit: yet another strong pitch by @solar; question about buyer protections; dcrtime internals; a proposal to sponsor hoodies in the University of Cape Town; Lightning Network support for altcoins.
Chats: skills to operate a stakepool; voting details: 2 of 3 votes can approve a block, what votes really approve are regular tx, etc; scriptless script atomic swaps using Schnorr adaptor signatures; dev dashboard, choosing work, people do best when working on what interests them most; opportunities for governments and enterprise for anchoring legal data to blockchain; terminology: DAO vs DAE; human-friendly payments, sharing xpub vs payment protocols; funding btcsuite development; Politeia vote types: approval vote, sentiment vote and a defund vote, also linking proposals and financial statements; algo trading and programming languages (yes, on #trading!); alternative implementation, C/C++/Go/Rust; HFTs, algo trading, fake volume and slippage; offline wallets, usb/write-only media/optical scanners vs auditing traffic between dcrd and dcrwallet; Proof of Activity did not inspire Decred but spurred Decred to get moving, Wikipedia page hurdles; how stakeholders could veto blocks; how many votes are needed to approve a proposal; why Decrediton uses Electron; CVE-2018-17144 and over-dependence on single Bitcoin implementation, btcsuite, fuzz testing; tracking proposal progress after voting and funding; why the wallet does not store the seed at all; power connectors, electricity, wiring and fire safety; reasonable spendings from project fund; ways to measure sync progress better than block height; using Politeia without email address; concurrency in Go, locks vs channels.
#support is not often mentioned, but it must be noted that every day on this channel people get high quality support. (@bee: To my surprise, even those poor souls running Windows 10. My greatest respect to the support team!)

Markets

In September DCR was trading in the range of USD 34-45 / BTC 0.0054-0.0063. On Sep 6, DCR revisited the bottom of USD 34 / BTC 0.0054 when BTC quickly dropped from USD 7,300 to 6,400. On Sep 14, a small price rise coincided with both the start of KuCoin trading and hashrate spike to 104 PH/s. Looking at coinmarketcap charts, the trading volume is a bit lower than in July and August.
As of Oct 4, Decred is #18 by the number of daily transactions with 3,200 tx, and #9 by the USD value of daily issuance with $230k. (source: onchainfx)
Interesting observation by @ImacallyouJawdy: while we sit at 2018 price lows the amount locked in tickets is testing 2018 high.

Relevant External

ASIC for Lyra2REv2 was spotted on the web. Vertcoin team is preparing a new PoW algorithm. This would be the 3rd fork after two previous forks to change the algorithm in 2014 and 2015.
A report titled The Positive Externalities of Bitcoin Mining discusses the benefits of PoW mining that are often overlooked by the critics of its energy use.
A Brief Study of Cryptonetwork Forks by Alex Evans of Placeholder studies the behavior of users, developers and miners after the fork, and makes the cases that it is hard for child chains to attract users and developers from their parent chains.
New research on private atomic swaps: the paper "Anonymous Atomic Swaps Using Homomorphic Hashing" attempts to break the public link between two transactions. (bitcointalk, decred)
On Sep 18 Poloniex announced delisting of 8 more assets. That day they took a 12-80% dive showing their dependence on this one exchange.
Circle introduced USDC markets on Poloniex: "USDC is a fully collateralized US dollar stablecoin using the ERC-20 standard that provides detailed financial and operational transparency, operates within the regulated framework of US money transmission laws, and is reinforced by established banking partners and auditors.".
Coinbase announced new asset listing process and is accepting submissions on their listing portal. (decred)
The New York State Office of the Attorney General posted a study of 13 exchanges that contains many insights.
A critical vulnerability was discovered and fixed in Bitcoin Core. Few days later a full disclosure was posted revealing the severity of the bug. In a bitcointalk thread btcd was called 'amateur' despite not being vulnerable, and some Core developers voiced their concerns about multiple implementations. The Bitcoin Unlimited developer who found the bug shared his perspective in a blog post. Decred's vision so far is that more full node implementations is a strength, just like for any Internet protocol.

About This Issue

This is the 6th 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 also welcome: some areas are adding content, pre-release review or translations to other languages.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee, Dustorf, jz, Haon, oregonisaac, raedah and Richard-Red.
submitted by jet_user to decred [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]

Trying to confirm some number from a blog.

Here's the blog: Saying Antimeter S9 is:
AntMiner S9
Gh/s14,000
0.00021952
Rewards per day: 0.0052685
According to Google, that's: $34.23 / day.
According to Amazon an S9 is about $900~1,100
So the S9 would pay for itself in about 30 days. (30 X 34.23 = $1,026)
Note: this doesn't account for the electricity costs. I'm trying to do the hardware, then the electricity, we have tiers and time so it's more complex.
https://hendrixjoseph.github.io/cryptocurrency-bitcoin-and-antminer-hash-rates/?quora
Q. is it reasonable to expect an S9 to produce $1,026 USD in 30 days?
Q. how many S9's can a person run in a regular house?
It looks like the S7 and others are a waste of electricity compared to the S9, but a bargain to buy. It looks like 3 S7's will produce about the same as 1 S9. (again, NOT counting electricity usage).
Are my number in line based on current BitCoin prices?
submitted by KarlJay001 to cryptomining [link] [comments]

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

Highlighting is my own:

Announcing the DragonMint miner series

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

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

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

[Hopefully] Extensive Genesis Mining Math - Looking at network difficulty: -38.6% terminal ROI (yes that's a negative)

I recently got into an argument with someone spewing referral links and touting Genesis (and BitConnect, smh) so I decided to run the numbers the best I could for his situation.
tl;dr You will have a return of investment of -38.6% (yes, negative) before your contract is cancelled because of increased network difficulty.
Methodology
The Numbers
I started w/ 16.5 TH/s because that is how much the other person said he had. At today's rates, it costs $2,175 to buy 16.5TH/s. Maintenance rate is $0.00028/GHs, so maintenance fee is $4.62 fee per day or $0.1925/hr. I inputted this CoinWarz calculator w/ the $2,175 as the hardware costs, I used power and power costs of 192.5 Watts and $0.001/Wh, which equals the same $0.1925/hr maintenance fee
Initial (read: the one Genesis wants you to look at but is actually misleading) verdict: 228 days to break even. NOTE: this is really important because some people seem to forget this. An investment in Genesis cannot be withdrawn. It's money gone. So after 228 days you haven't doubled your money or even earned $2,175, you have $0. You spent $2,175 and then you got it back. $0 total.
Now, stepping it up, I introduce the effect of network difficulty. From my methodology, we assume that the difficulty doubles every six months. That means that you're making (after maintenance fee) the full $9.54/day on day one, but at month six it's $2.46. Wait a minute, that's not half!! I made this mistake too! Of the initial $9.54, you're earning $14.16 but paying a maintenance fee of $4.62 - so after network difficulty doubles you earn $7.08/day but still have to pay the same $4.62 maintenance fee (your Gemini contract includes nothing about them ever having to provide a better maintenance fee ever).
The network difficulty continues to increase and around the 9 month mark (to be precise, once network difficulty increases 3.065 times or day 280 of your contract) you're earning $4.62/day and your maintenance fee is $4.62 and imminently your contract is cancelled. You've hit the end of the road.
Based on the virtues of linearity, if you're earning $9.54/day on day 1 and $0/day on day $280. Thus you're earning an average $4.77/day over 280 days for a total of $1,335.60, which is a net loss of $839.40 or a return of -38.6% on your initial $2,175.
Conclusion
You will not make money with Genesis. You will lose money, a lot. The only way to make money is through referral links. That makes Genesis an MLM scheme.
EDIT: formatting.
submitted by barrycl to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price Made Yearly High Yesterday, How High Can It ... Bitcoin Cost & Price Bitcoin Today & Bitcoin Money & Bitcoin Value in Dollars & Bitcoin Account Bitcoin Mining Profits - YouTube Best Bitcoin Mining Company 2017: Hashing24, Genesis Mining Or Galaxy Mining? Free Bitcoin Cloud Mining Site  Bonus 100 GH/s on Signup ...

Bitcoin was first presented to the world in 2009 by an anonymous identity known as Satoshi Nakamoto. As Bitcoin works on a decentralized network, it is completely free from the involvement of third-party financial institutions or central banks. The Bitcoin blockchain facilitates instant peer-to-peer transactions at minimum transactions fees required to maintain the network. The total number of ... Start Mining Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, including Dash, Litecoin, Zcash, Ethereum. Check out our pricing plans today! English. Spanish; Chinese +1-888-889-3335 [email protected] ... The default difficulty growth rate is taken to be 5%, which was approximately the average two-week difficulty increase between February 2016 and August 2017. The cost of electricity is taken to be $0.15 per kWh. The hashrate, cost, and power consumption of the hardware are taken to be those of an AntMiner S9 ASIC miner (13.5 Th/s, $1,987.95 ... 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? The Bitcoin price and the total network hash rate. The Bitcoin network hash rate is growing at a rate of 0.4527678% per day. 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 ...

[index] [47136] [38764] [27227] [42857] [4601] [12331] [12718] [17511] [20300] [22873]

Bitcoin Price Made Yearly High Yesterday, How High Can It ...

New Free Mining Bitcoin VI-MINE Free Bonus Power 100 Gh/s Link : https://bit.ly/3kKcfP9 GOOD LUCK #MiningBitcoin #FreeMiningBitcoin #Bitcoin #Ethereum #Lit... Jan.03 -- Antoni Trenchev, co-founder of Nexo, discusses Bitcoin’s 9,000,000% rise in the last 10 years and his outlook for the cryptocurrency in 2020. He sp... Take a look inside of my Lifestyle Galaxy dashboard to check my profits from my bitcoin mining contract. Monthly updates. Want to start mining your own bitco... As per our previous video where we mentioned that Bitcoin price can explode to the upside, the crypto king made a high for this year yesterday. Of course, th... A month ago, Peter bought a Lamborghini Huracan using Bitcoin that he bought in 2011 for $115. At that time, Bitcoin was at $5600. Today it is over $8000! It...

#