Antminer S2 - Antminer Distribution - €395,-

BitcoinZ: A community gift to the world.

BitcoinZ, a cryptocurrency based on bitcoin + zkSNARKs

Bminer is a highly optimized cryptocurrency miner that runs on modern NVIDIA GPUs

A subreddit, for people using Bminer for mining that want to share knowledge, configs, and advice to others.


The home for the most innovative cryptocurrency, VeriCoin and Verium VeriCoin: Proof-of-Stake-Time Protocol. PoST Verified. Verium: Proof-of-Work-Time Protocol. PoWT Verified. CPU Mine-able (GPU and ASIC Resistant)

Best place to sell a used miner for bitcoin? (Antminer S2, stock, 900TH/s, asking about 1.1btc OBO.

UPS shipping included. I'm not really sure what it's worth at this point, it's been a total lose so far. I'm including domestic (USA) UPS shipping.
submitted by Bipolarruledout to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

[OWL WATCH] Waiting for "IOTA TIME" 27;

Disclaimer: This is my editing, so there could be always some misunderstandings and exaggerations, plus many convos are from 'spec channel', so take it with a grain of salt, pls.
+ I added some recent convos afterward.
Luigi Vigneri [IF]어제 오후 8:26
Giving the opportunity to everybody to set up/run nodes is one of IOTA's priority. A minimum amount of resources is obviously required to prevent easy attacks, but we are making sure that being active part of the IOTA network can be possible without crazy investments.
we are building our solution in such a way that the protocol is fair and lightweight.

Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:24
IOTA is not "free to use" but it's - fee-less
you have tokens? you can send them around for free
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:25
you have no tokens? you have to pay to use the network
lekanovic어제 오후 11:25
I think it is a smart way to avoid the spamming network problem
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26
owning tokens is essentially like owning a share of the actual network
and the throughput it can process
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:26****​
if you don't need all of that yourself, you can rent it out to people and earn money
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
mana = tokens * time since you own them
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:27
the longer you hold your tokens and the more you have, the more mana you have
but every now and then you have to move them to "realize" that mana
lekanovic어제 오후 11:28
Is there any other project that is using a Mana solution to the network fee problem ?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:28
the problem with current protocol is that they are leader based
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
you need absolute consensus on who the current leaders are and what their influence in the network is
that's how blockchains works
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:29
if two block producers produce 2 blocks at the same time, then you have to choose which one wins
and where everybody attaches their next block to
IOTA works differently and doesn't need to choose a single leader
we therefore have a much bigger flexibility of designing our sybil protection mechanisms
in a way, mana is also supposed to solve the problem of "rewarding" the infrastructure instead of the validators
in blockchain only the miners get all the money
running a node and even if it's one that is used by a lot of people will only cost
you won't get anything back
no fees, nothing
the miners get it all
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:31
in IOTA, the node operators receive the mana
which gives them a share of the network throughput
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:32
because in blockchain you need to decide whose txs become part of the blocks
and it's not really based on networking protocols like AIMD
lekanovic어제 오후 11:33
And the more Mana your node have, the more trust your node has and you have more to say in the FPC, is that correct?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:33
a node that has processed a lot of txs of its users will have more mana than other nodes
and therefore a bigger say in deciding conflicts
its a direct measure of "trust" by its users
lekanovic어제 오후 11:34
And choosing committee for dRNG would be done on L1 protocol level?
Everything regarding Mana will be L1 level, right?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
Mana is layer1, but will also be used as weight in L2 solutions like smart contracts
lekanovic어제 오후 11:35
And you are not dependant on using SC to implement this
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:35
No, you don't need smart contracts
That's all the base layer
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:37
'Time' actually takes into account things like decay
So it doesn't just increase forever
It's close to "Demurrage" in monetary theory
lekanovic어제 오후 11:36
For projects to be able to connect to Polkadot or Cosmos, you need to get the state of the ledger.
Will it be possible to get the Tangle state?
If this would be possible, then I think it would be SUPER good for IOTA
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:38
Yeah but polkadot is not connecting other dlts
Just inhouse stuff
Hyperware어제 오후 11:39
Is there still a cap on mana so that the rich don't get richer?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:39
Yes mana is capped
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:39
u/Hans Moog [IF] My first thought is that the evolution of this renting system will lead to several big mana renting companies that pool together tons of token holders mana. That way businesses looking to rent mana just need to deal with a reliable mana renting company for years instead of a new individual every couple of months (because life happens and you don't know if that individual will need to sell their IOTAs due to personal reasons). Any thoughts on this?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:41
u/TangleAccountant yes that is likely - but also not a bad thing - token holders will have a place to get their monthly payout and the companies that want to use the tangle without having tokens have a place to pay
TangleAccountant어제 오후 11:42
Oh I completely agree. That's really cool. I'll take a stab at creating one of those companies in the US.
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:42
And everybody who wants to run a node themselves or has tokens and wants use the tangle for free can do so
But "leachers" that would want to use the network for free won't be able to do so
I mean ultimately there will always be "fees", as there is no "free lunch".
You have a certain amount of resources that a network can process and you have a certain demand.
And that will naturally result in fees based on supply / demand
what you can do however is to build a system where the actual users of that system that legitimately want to use it can do so for free,
just because they already "invest" enough by having tokens
or running infrastructure
they are already contributing to the well-being of the network through these two aspects alone
it would be stupid to ask those guys for additional fees
and mana essentially tries to be such a measure of honesty among the users
Hyperware어제 오후 11:47
It's interesting from an investment perspective that having tokens/mana is like owning a portion of the network.
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:48
Yeah, you are owning a certain % of the throughput and whatever the price will ultimately be to execute on this network - you will earn proportionally
but you have to keep in mind that we are trying to build the most efficient DLT that you could possibly ever build
semibaron어제 오후 11:48
The whole mana (tokens) = share of network throuput sounds very much like EOS tbh
Just that EOS uses DPoS
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
yeah i mean there is really not too many new things under the sun - you can just tweak a few things here and there, when it comes to distributing resources
DPoS is simply not very nice from a centralization aspect
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:50
at least not the way EOS does it
delegating weights is 1 thing
but assuming that the weight will always be in a way that 21 "identities" run the whole network is bad
in the current world you see a centralization of power
but ultimately we want to build a future where the wealth is more evenly distributed
and the same goes for voting power
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:52
blockchain needs leader selection
it only works with such a centralizing component
IOTA doesn't need that
it's delusional to say that IOTA wouldn't have any such centralization
but maybe we get better than just a handselected nodes 📷
Phantom3D어제 오후 11:52
How would this affect a regular hodler without a node. Should i keep my tokens elsewere to generate mana and put the tokens to use?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:53
you can do whatever you want with your mana
just make an account at a node you regularly use and use it to build up a reputation with that node
to be able to use your funds for free
or run a node yourself
or rent it out to companies if you just hodl
semibaron어제 오후 11:54
Will there be a build-in function into the node software / wallet to delegate ("sell") my mana?
Hans Moog [IF]어제 오후 11:55
u/semibaron not from the start - that would happen on a 2nd layer
dom어제 오후 9:49
suddenly be incentive to hold iota?
to generate Mana
Hyperware오늘 오전 4:21
The only thing I can really do, is believe that the IF have smart answers and are still building the best solutions they can for the sake of the vision
dom오늘 오전 4:43
100% - which is why we're spending so much effort to communicate it more clearly now
we'll do an AMA on this topic very soon
M [s2]오늘 오전 4:54
u/dom​ please accept my question for the AMA: will IOTA remain a permissionless system and if so, how?
dom오늘 오전 4:57
of course it remains permissionless
dom오늘 오전 5:20
what is permissioned about it?
is ETH or Bitcoin permissioned because you have to pay a transaction fee in their native token?
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:24
How did your industry partners think about the mana solution and the fact they need to hold the token to ensure network throughput?
dom오늘 오전 5:26
u/Gerrit considering how the infrastructure, legal and regulatory frameworks are improving around the adoption and usage of crypto-currencies within large companies, I really think that we are introducing this concept exactly at the right time. It should make enterprise partners comfortable in using the permissionless network without much of a hurdle. They can always launch their own network if they want to ...
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:27
Launching their own network can’t be what you want
dom오늘 오전 5:27
but that is what's happening with Ethereum and all the other networks
they don't hold Ether tokens either.
Gerrit오늘 오전 5:32
Will be very exciting to see if ongoing regulation will „allow“ companies to invest and hold the tokens. With upcoming custody solutions that would be a fantastic play.
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:34
It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
there will still be sharding to keep the network free most of the time
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:35
but without a protection mechanism, somebody could just spam a lot of bullshit and you could break the network(수정됨)
you need some form of protection from this
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:36
u/Hans Moog [IF] so when I have 0 Mana, I can still send transactions? This is actually the point where it got strange...
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
yes you can
unless the network is close to its processing capabilities / being attacked by spammers
then the nodes will favor the mana holders
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:37
but having mana is not a requirement for many years to come
currently even people having fpgas can't spam that many tps
and we will also have sharding implemented by then
M [s2]오늘 오전 5:39
Thank you u/Hans Moog [IF] ! This is the actually important piece of info!
Basha오늘 오전 5:38
ok, i thought it was communicated that you need at least 1 mana to process a transaction.
from the blogpost: "... a node with 0 mana can issue no transactions."
maybe they meant during the congestion**, but if that's the case maybe you should add that**
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:42
its under the point "Congestion control:"
yeah this only applies to spam attacks
network not overloaded = no mana needed
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 5:43
if congested => favor txs from people who have the most skin in the game
but sharding will try to keep the network non-congested most of the time - but there might be short periods of time where an attacker might bring the network close to its limits
and of course its going to take a while to add this, so we need a protection mechanism till sharding is supported(수정됨)
Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오전 6:36
I don't have a particular problem with EOS or their amount of validators - the reason why I think blockchain is inferior has really nothing to do with the way you do sybil protection
and with validators I mean "voting nodes"
I mean even bitcoin has less mining pools
and you could compare mining pools to dpos in some sense
where people assign their weight (in that case hashing power) to the corresponding mining pools
so EOS is definitely not less decentralized than any other tech
but having more identities having weight in the decision process definitely makes it harder to corrupt a reasonable fraction of the system and makes it easier to shard
so its desirable to have this property(수정됨)


Antonio Nardella [IF]오늘 오전 3:36
u/C3PO [92% Cooless] They could also add more git repos instead of the wallet one, and we would probably be #1 there too..
I'm sorry, maybe I'm fueling some confusion through posting this mana-thing too soon,
but, instead of erasing this posting, I'm adding recent convos.
Certain things about mana seem to be not clear, yet.
It would be better to wait for some official clarification.
But, I hope the community gives its full support to IF, 'cause
there could be always some bumps along the untouched, unchartered way.
Recent Addition;

Billy Sanders [IF]오늘 오후 1:36

It's still possible to send transactions even without mana - mana is only used in times of congestion to give the people that have more mana more priority
u/Hans Moog [IF] Im sorry Hans, but this is false in the current congestion control algorithm. No mana = no transactions. To be honest, we havent really tried to make it work so that you can sent transactions with no mana during ties with no congestion, but I dont see how you can enable this and still maintain the sybil protection required. u/Luigi Vigneri [IF] What do you think?📷

Dave [EF]오늘 오후 2:19

Suggestion: Sidebar, then get back to us with the verdict.(수정됨)📷2📷

dom오늘 오후 2:27

No Mana no tx will definitely not be the case(수정됨)📷5📷7***[오후 2:28]***Billy probably means the previous rate control paper as it was written by Luigi. I'll clarify with them📷

Hans Moog [IF]오늘 오후 2:29

When was this decided u/Billy Sanders [IF] and by whom? Was this discussed at last resum when I wasnt there? The last info that I had was that the congestion control should only kick in when there is congestion?!?***[오후 2:29]***📷 📷 📷📷

Navin Ramachandran [IF]오늘 오후 2:30

Let's sidebar this discussion and return when we have agreement. Dave has the right idea

submitted by btlkhs to Iota [link] [comments]

Regarding the Venezuelan user that "scammed" people here

Hey, my name is Roy, and I came here to address a delicate subject, I am not a mod, I am just a regular user, living in Venezuela, with just a simple advice; please have some common sense, I am not here to insult you, that is not my intention, the majority of Venezuelans in Reddit are very upset because of this (if you can speak spanish, or you can use google translate please have a read here), and are calling it "Viveza Criolla", we as Venezuelans DO NOT CONDONE this, that was just plain and simple a scam.
Of course with this I am not saying there are no miners in Venezuela being arrested and their miners taken away ( --- ( --- (, but there are very punctual cases, for example, in the first case two brothers were arrested, but it all happened because they had OVER 90 MINING RIGS.
In November, Venezuela’s secret police raided the house of two brothers in Caracas and found more than 90 mining terminals. The agents demanded $1,000 in bribes for each machine, according to the brothers, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they fear arrest. The brothers said they paid the bribes to stay in business.
On the second report, the guys had over 300 mining rigs, they had a whole hangar for them
Authorities confiscated 300 mining terminals, according to photos published on Rico’s Instagram account, Criptonoticias reported. The models included Antminer S4s, produced by Beijing-based Bitmain, and SP31 Yukons, manufactured by Israel-based Spondoolies.
On the third one, they don't state how many miners were seized but you can presume they were a lot of them
With the arrests, authorities also seized mining machines as well as four laptops.
The two bitcoin miners are awaiting prosecution at Tribunal Séptimo de Control, or the Seventh Control Court in Carabobo.
I can also tell you that the government takes these machines they seize and put them to work for them
None of the low time miners have been arrested, specially because here in Venezuela, there is absolutely NO CONTROL of the electricity consumption(which is their excuse everytime they make one of these busts, truth is, there is always someone slipping, or saying something to someone else, then it all goes from there), I can tell you for experience that none of the low time miners have been arrested and their machines seized, I have several friends up to 10 mining rigs and none of them have even been disturbed by the police, also, why was this guy's machines taken away but he was not arrested?
I am sorry I am getting off track here, about the common sense, please just look at this guys history. it's full of red flags
He claims Venezuela minimum wage is only 20$ (which was real at that time) and might make you think, oh dude, this guy is poor.
But a little over 6 months later he was trading his PSN and Amazon cards for paypal, again this is not an indication of any wrongdoing, but for a normal Venezuelan, a year ago $100, was a lot of money.
Up from there, he trades a lot of money in gifts cards, (again for a Venezuelan more than $100 is a lot of money)
He then goes to mining Ether with his rig and then he says another red flag in his post he says that he doesnt pay for electricity
After that he goes dark for like 6 months, then 14 days ago he posts this: "my dad stop giving me money for college in my first year, had to start making money by my self, still no car but I made it to the last year, but I live in Venezuela so I can't afford public transport anymore to college so he can't afford money for transportation yet recently he claimed that he has 1000$ in crypto?
Just so you know, many Venezuelans with real problems are trying to leave the country and believe me, $1000 can buy you a plane ticket, in first class. To leave the country by land in a bus to Ecuador can costs you $250
These are the prices I collected when I first started making plans to leave but they have increased since, not by much, but is still an approximate
Then 4 days ago in an assistance thread he claims that he is migrating to Chile and he has not much money
Here comes the part where he was asking for advice deciding if he should buy Antminers S2 or trade but when Gasset told him to go to charities subreddit, he posted in vzla saying "How do you manage to not kill yourself" or (in case he decides to delete it).
Also, worth nothing in the thread about killing himself he says that he is "tired of the creole' cleverness", or Viveza Criolla as said early.
AND THEN!!! Comes the big one, suddenly 14 hours ago "Police came to his house and took his miners" also, worth nothing that in his comment he says that police said they knew because of his "electricity consumption", (again HUGE red flag), or a neighbor told someone, this, while (if real) is the most likely scenario, why in the world anyone mining BTC would even tell anyone that you have miners? in a country were police is arresting miners. (Of course not for one second I believe he had them, he would be in handcuffs)
Of course he then goes to contradict himself all over, saying things like "He was planning to sell his rig for $1000 to go to chile
Then when someone gives him a tip (reddit is down i can't see how much he got) He says "You didn't have to!" (Oh poor you, you mother*****) (Sorry I am pissed off right now)
And then all hell breaks loose from then on.
As I said earlier, there are Venezuelans in real need to leave the country, and even $200 can help them leave.
Before donating to any random redditor (not only Venezuelans) please check his post history, check if his story adds up.
There was recently the case of a guy from Venezuela saying he was waiting for donations to help other Venezuelans ( that created the website, he received 1 btc, and he vanished, his last post was from a month ago. now, those 17k could have helped a LOT of people to eat, or simply leave their country
Or better yet, if you want to help Venezuelans, donate to a Venezuelan charity This one is one of the bests (there are other, it's 3 am here sorry)
I suggest you please take a second and have a little common sense.
Thank you and so sorry for ranting here, as I said, there are Venezuelans with real needs and real problems out there.
I also hope you don't label ALL Venezuelans as scammers because of one rotten apple.
Again, thank you. If you have any questions I am happy to answer, also I am sure many Venezuelans will come here to express their opinion.
Edit: Formatting

Edit 2: GODDAMMIT! Not again
submitted by Roy_Vzla to btc [link] [comments]

Cybtc Review: Bitmain Antminer S15-28TH/s

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

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

Antminer S15 official parameters,

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

I. Unpacking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Antminer S15 installation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Review:

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

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

Standard mode test

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

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

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

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

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

Low power mode test

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

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

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

Contact point temperature value between the power supply and mining machine mining board.

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

IV. Summary:

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

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

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

More miner and crypto reviews on:

submitted by cybtc to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

[Spoilers S2E11] Bitcoin, E-Coin & Cryptocurrency - Bitcoin geek here - some stuff worth knowing

Bitcoin was mentioned throughout the show again.
I'm from the Bitcoin community and we've been watching with great interest since episode 1 of this season the continual mentions of Bitcoin and ECoin. There are a few discussions of this over at Bitcoin for example.
The biggest point for the show perhaps is that Bitcoin represents new money and something that makes it impossible to do all the financial trickery we saw in 2008 and see now with ECorp -- since no party can control Bitcoin, no party can use that as a fractional reserve or print new currency at will like the Fed can
So anyway it's a fascinating thing for those of us in the industry.
Thank you to Sam and whoever else put this in the program.
PS: any questions about crypto/ Bitcoin, ledgers and alt coins like the real versions of ECoin AMA I'm board member & former head of the largest Bitcoin organization, the Bitcoin Foundation, I'm founder of the Bitcoin Association, host of Dubai Bitcoin Conference and host of Satoshi Roundtable VIP retreat - early adopter - I breath this world -- anyone has any questions as related to the show AMA
If any producers are watching please PM me or let us know here who's idea this was and how it came about - we all love it and are fascinated - clearly this was someone who definitely understands Bitcoin - thanks again and thanks for an awesome show
submitted by bruce_fenton to MrRobot [link] [comments]

bit_by_bit's mining-cost analysis is wrong - here's mine

bit_by_bit publishes a daily mining-cost-per-coin watch.
Though his work is thorough and commendable, it is unfortunately incorrect, and his conclusions naive.
I'm sure he has misled people on this board, so I'm here to set the record straight.
Roughly using bit_by_bit's assumptions:
achieves these costs per coin:
Miner Cost per coin
Cointerra TerraMiner IV $1985
KnC Neptune $2030
Bitfury BF3500 $1650
Bitmain Aintminer s3 $866
Bitmain Aintminer s2 $1305
Average $1570


Given those two huge, highly variable (and unpredictable) factors, trying to work out a cost-per-coin is ... more-or-less impossible.
It's simply enough to assume that mining is extremely unprofitable at the moment and (probably) a very poor investment.
Here are some examples of variability:
Cointerra TerraMiner IV cost per coin
0% difficulty increase $759
20% difficulty increase $2640
15% difficulty, but starting at 30bn difficulty $3265

How are these numbers so different from bit_by_bits?

His calculations do not factor in an exponential difficulty increase. Instead, he says (in his maths) : "if the bitcoin network were composed of the miners here, and no extra miners are added/removed (i.e. difficulty remains the same) what would those miners (on average) achieve as a cost per coin over six months."

The problem with these numbers is

  1. The percentage of miners he uses to compose the network is unknowable, and as you see above, miner performance varies greatly. I'm quite sure that huge operations custom manufacture their machines and never sell them. Their performance is unknown. (an unknowable unknown)
  2. The makeup of the mining network in the future is unknowable, and difficulty will undoubtedly increase, but we can't know by how much. It has previously plateaued. Will it do the same? nobody knows.
  3. They assume the very latest miners, shipped immediately. Historically, new miners are not shipped on time. It's been suggested that the manufacturers keep them and do highly profitable day-zero mining with them.
Also, to suggest that it is possible to predict market movements (and depth) is naive as it asserts that demand is constant, and that supply is the major, or key, factor. This is highly unlikely to be the case.

Let's talk about mining's effect on bitcoin price or, first should we talk about the effect of the price of bitcoin on the mining industry?

The two are intimately linked chicken-and-egg in a feedback loop.
For a manufacturer to decide to make a rig, they need to design chips, get industry contacts, produce things (in china), make sure they work, then ship. They also need to get orders and decide if they are able to get the whole project in time for market.
These projects are multi-month/year, and I've heard success is largely decided by who you know in china (china's pretty busy already).
There is some kind of lag. Investors also pre-order, and must take a wild guess at future conditions with no guarantee whatsoever.
At times like now, where mining is so unprofitable, which miners are actually selling coins (at a loss)?
Large operations have large overheads, but to sell now, when the price might rise by 10x again would be idiotic.
So, really this "supply" aspect of the supply-demand equation is very difficult to get a decent hold on, though I would love somebody to attempt it as a PHD. The blockchain should provide some answers.
The other side of it (what miners will be produced) is also difficult to know. It could be that right now (with an unprofitable industry, and miners actually being quite close to desktop PC chip-size - i.e. as fast as humans can make them) no miners are in the pipe-line. This could (in crazy theory) lead to a zero difficulty increase for the lucky new owners of the above rigs. In that case, bit_by_bit's numbers would be spot on.
Unfortunately, it's absolutely unknowable.

So... why do people buy miners now?

Quite simply, getting your head around an exponential anything is hard. The exponential difficulty increase is a motherfucker. But it's good for bitcoin (it protects our network from meddlers).
Also, you could gamble that mining difficulty has to slow down... surely...


In my experience, looking at price charts is far more informative about future market movements. But, whilst I've got the microphone, I would remind newbies not to trade their coins.

Show your workings!

Using this mining profitability calculator and inputing the "profitability decline per year" from this tool.
I'll work through Cointerra TerraMiner IV as an example.
meh meh
Difficulty 18,736,441,558
ghash 2000
Elec $0.15 (varies quite a bit from country-to country, like 0.7 canada to 0.2 UK?)
power 2200
time frame 6 months
hardware cost $6000
price per BTC 600
profitability decline 0.00882406
I got these numbers off bit_by_bit. I don't care about the details. My argument is that it's not an answerable question.
meh meh
Electricity cost $1446
Total cost $7446
Income 2553
Coins 2252/600 = 3.75 BTC
$/BTC 7446/3.75 = $1985
Please, if I've made a mistake, let me know and I'll send bit_by_bit some flowers.

"Why are you just posting stuff directly against another user: that's not cool"

Well, it's whatever motivates you eh?
I just go wound up by our discussions. But, I'm quite sure there are people on this board who don't know this stuff, so ... it's probably beneficial.
Have fun
EDIT: Ok, so I genuinely thought that I had made a fact-based post. Er, I added a few comments that I thought were funny, but I guess that wasn't a great idea. I removed one of my comments myself, but it's true that the moderators were in touch.....
And - to bit_by_bit, I am sorry, because some of the things I said were above and beyond "spirited discussion".
I absolutely agree that polite conduct is the way forward, and my initial "hang on a minute" reply to him was nice.
But, I do have to admit that this subject has wound me up a fair amount. I genuinely believe that he's made a quite serious mistake - but I am happy to be proved wrong. Right now - I just want to get to the bottom of this.
More Edit:

I am a miner

I didn't want to add this before, because I'm sure it (incorrectly) gives my argument more weight. But I need you to understand that bitcoin difficulty is a total motherfucker.
I pre-ordered a BFL single for 11BTC in May 2013. The difficulty was about 4 million, and I worked out I'd make 30BTC/day at those conditions.
It arrived at around 30 million difficulty, and I think now we're 18 billion.
I've made about 0.7 BTC mining, and It's on the limit of believability that I'll make 1BTC before I throw it in the bin. I have a suspicion that it will be useful in the future for some altcoin/blockchain like thing. Also, I got free heating (which was the whole reason I discovered bitcoin in the first place!)
Horrific loss. I think it makes about $1 more than it costs in electricity to run (at current price......)
This whole post is not a "bitter miner" but somebody who has experienced bitcoin's exponential difficulty First Hand. Honestly, it is unbelievable.
I genuinely think that the guy that does the profitability calculator deliberately does not explain what the 'profitability decline per year' is ... because he knows it will adversely harm bitcoin and the manufacture of miners.
Even More EDIT:

Am I sure I've got the difficulty increase thing right?

So, I've made a spreadsheet thing to see if the 0.0022 difficulty thing is right. It is.
All this table tells you is that in order to calculate 15% difficulty increase, you need to use a number LIKE 0.0022 in the 'profitability decline per year' box, and not 0.98 (which bit_by_bit calculated).
I've sanity checked my numbers against the 'profitability calculator' and they don't quite line up, but they're close enough. The difficulty is not the same either, but it's in the same region. I don't know why. Also, the months aren't exact fortnights, so they don't line up. These are details.
This proves my above workings to my satisfaction.

what is this horrible data?

It shows how much BTC your miner earns each 2 weeks (average difficulty change period). The last 2 rows (calc:) are from the profitability calculator website (and so are right). My attempt is on the left. Fortnight 13 is 6 months.
Oh, this graph uses 14.07% difficulty.
fortnight number "profitability decline" BTC earned BTC earned accumulated calculator says BTC
1 1 0.7518 0.7518 x
2 0.8593 0.64602174 1.39782174 1.361666667
3 0.73839649 0.555126481 1.952948221 x
4 0.634504104 0.477020185 2.429968406 2.295
5 0.545229376 0.409903445 2.839871852 x
6 0.468515603 0.35223003 3.192101882 2.938333333
7 0.402595458 0.302671265 3.494773147 x
8 0.345950277 0.260085418 3.754858565 3.378333333
9 0.297275073 0.2234914 3.978349965 x
10 0.25544847 0.19204616 4.170396125 3.68
11 0.21950687 0.165025265 4.33542139 x
12 0.188622254 0.14180621 4.477227601 3.888333333
13 0.162083103 0.121854077 4.599081677 x
14 0.13927801 0.104709208 4.703790885 4.03
15 0.119681594 0.089976622 4.793767508 x
16 0.102842394 0.077316912 4.871084419 3.213333333
17 0.088372469 0.066438422 4.937522842 x
18 0.075938463 0.057090536 4.994613378 4.195
19 0.065253921 0.049057898 5.043671276 x
20 0.056072694 0.042155452 5.085826727 4.241666667
21 0.048183266 0.03622418 5.122050907 x
22 0.041403881 0.031127437 5.153178344 4.273333333
23 0.035578355 0.026747807 5.179926151 x
24 0.03057248 0.022984391 5.202910542 4.295
25 0.026270932 0.019750487 5.222661028 x
26 0.022574612 0.016971593 5.239632622 x
2 bold numbers. 1 is approximately the 3.75 coins that gives you $1900 / coin whatever. 2 is the "profitability decline per year" as a tiny number. The pro tool comes up with 0.01095125 and I got 0.02257 but I don't care - it's close enough.
My whole point is that these numbers are totally unworkably all over the place. You can't calculate them meaningfully.

Dear Bit_by_Bit

I CANNOT BELIEVE the amount of effort that I have had to go to in order to show you that you made a minor mistake. (at time of writing you still deny it).
There is no doubt in my mind now that I was right in the first place. Your calculations do not include a significant difficulty increase.
I wish you well.
submitted by inteblio to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

"POS stands for the future? Qtum brings deep analysis"

Each cryptocurrency will adopt some kind of consensus mechanism so that the entire distributed network can maintain synchronization. Bitcoin adopted the Proof of Work (PoW) consensus mechanism from the very beginning of its birth to achieve proof of workload through continuous digital cryptographic hash operations. Since the hashing algorithm is unidirectional, even a small change in the input data will make the output hash value completely different. If the calculated hash value satisfies certain conditions (referred to as "mining difficulty"), participants in the bitcoin network identify the workload proof. Mining difficulty is an ever-changing hash target. When the speed of network-generated blocks becomes faster, the difficulty is automatically increased to maintain the average of the entire network every 10 minutes.
For those who are not very familiar with the blockchain, here are some basic definitions to help understand the post:
PoW and Blockchain Consensus System
Through 8 years of development of Bitcoin, the security of the PoW mechanism has been confirmed. However, PoW has the following problems:
  1. PoW has wasted a lot of power resources and is not friendly to the environment;
  2. PoW is only economically advantageous for big people who have a lot of power (normal users can hardly mine into mines);
  3. PoW lacks incentives for users to hold or use coins;
  4. PoW has a certain risk of centralization, because miners tend to join large pools, which makes large pools have a greater influence on the network;
The right to benefit prove mechanism (Proof of Stake, hereinafter referred to as PoS) can solve a lot of problems among this, because it enables any user with tokens in your wallet can have the opportunity to dig mine (of course, will get mining reward). The PoS was originally proposed by Sunny King in Peercoin. It was later refined and adopted in a variety of cryptocurrencies. Among these are PoS Vasin's PoS 2.0, Larry Ren's PoS Velocity, and the recent CASPER proposed by Vlad Zamfir, as well as various other relatively unknown projects.
The consensus mechanism adopted by Qtum is based on PoS3.0. PoS3.0 is an upgraded version of PoS2.0, also proposed and implemented by Pavel Vasin. This article will focus on this version of the PoS implementation. Qtum made some changes based on PoS3.0, but the core consensus mechanism is basically the same.
For general community members and even some developers, PoS is not particularly easy to understand because there are currently fewer documents detailing how to ensure network security in networks that use only token ownership to achieve consensus. This article will elaborate on how to generate, verify, and secure the PoS blockchain in PoS3.0. The article may involve some technical knowledge, but I will try to describe it with some of the basic definitions provided in this article. But at least the reader needs to have a basic idea of ​​a UTXO-based blockchain.
Before introducing PoS, let me briefly introduce PoW's working mechanism, which can help the following understanding of PoS. The PoW mining process can be represented by the following pseudocode:  
While(blockhash > difficulty) { Block.nonce = block.nonce + 1 Blockhash = sha256(sha256(block)) } 
The hash operation used here I explained earlier, that is, to use arbitrary length data as input, after a series of operations, get a fixed-length information digest as an output, but only know the information digest but it is impossible to reverse the corresponding input data . The whole process is a lot like the lottery winning mechanism. You can create a “voucher” by hashing the data and compare it with the target hash range to determine if you “win”. If you don't win, you can create a new "voucher" again by slightly changing some of the data. The random number nonce in Bitcoin is used to adjust the input data. Once the required hash is found, the block is legitimate and can be broadcast to a distributed network. Once the other miners in the network receive this new block message and pass the verification, they will add the block to the chain and continue to build the block after the new block.
PoS protocol structure and rules
Now we begin to introduce PoS. PoS has the following goals :
  1. Cannot fake blocks;
  2. "Large households" will not receive much disproportionately large rewards;
  3. Having strong computing power does not help create blocks;
  4. No one or several members of the network can control the entire blockchain;
The basic concept of PoS is very similar to PoW, and it is like a lottery. The only difference is that PoS can't get new "lotteries" just by fine-tuning the input data, PoW uses "block hash" as lottery ticket, and PoS introduces the concept of "kernel hash".
The Kernel hash takes as input multiple unmodifiable data in the current block. So, because the miners can't find a simple way to modify the kernal hash, they can't get legal through a lot of traversal of the possible hash.New block.
In order to achieve this goal, PoS added many additional consensus rules.
First, unlike PoW, the PoS's coinbase transaction (that is, the first transaction in the block) has zero output. At the same time, in order to reward Staker, a staking transaction was introduced as the second transaction of the block. The staking transaction has the following features:
  1. There are at least 1 legal vin
  2. The first vout must be empty script
  3. The second vout must not be empty
In addition, staking transactions must also obey the following rules :
  1. The second vout must be a pubkey script (note that it is not pubkeyhash) or an OP_RETURN script that cannot be used to save data on the chain;
  2. The timestamp in the transaction must be consistent with the block timestamp;
  3. The total output value of the staking transaction must be less than or equal to the sum of all input values, PoS block awards, and transaction fees (ie output <= (input + block_reward + tx_fees));
  4. The output corresponding to the first vin must pass the confirmation of at least 500 blocks (that is, the currency spent needs at least 500 blocks to confirm);
  5. Although the staking transaction can have multiple input vins, only the first vin is used for the consensus mechanism;
These rules make it easy to identify the staking transaction, thus ensuring that it can provide enough information to verify the block. It should be noted here that the first vout is not the only way to identify the staking transaction, but since the PoS3.0 designer Sunny King started using this method, and proved its reliability in long-term practice, so we have also adopted this method to identify staking transactions.
Now that we know the definition of the staking transaction and we understand the rules that it must follow, let's introduce the rules of the PoS block :
The most important of these rules for PoS is the "kernal hash". The role of the kernel hash is similar to that of the block hash in PoW. That is, if the hash value matches the condition, the block is considered valid. However, kernal hash cannot be obtained by directly modifying part of the current block. Next, I will first introduce the structure and operating mechanism of kernal hash, and then further explain the purpose of this design, and if you change the unforeseen consequences of this design will bring.
Kernel Hash in PoS
The kernal hash consists of the following data in order as input:
The "skate modifier" of a block refers to the hash value of the following data:
There are only two ways to change the current kernel hash (for mining), either change "prevout" or change the current block time.
In general, a wallet will contain multiple UTXOs. The balance of the wallet is actually the sum of all available UTXOs in the current wallet. This is also applicable in PoS wallets and is even more important because arbitrary output may be used for staking. One of these outputs will be the prevout in the staking transaction, which will be used to generate a valid block.
In addition, there is one more important change in the PoS block mining process (compared to PoW), which is that the difficulty of mining is inversely proportional to the number of coins owned (rather than the number of UTXOs). For example, a wallet with 2 coins is only half the difficulty of mining. If it is not designed this way, users will be encouraged to generate many UTXOs with small micro-regulations, which will cause the block size to become larger and may cause some security problems.
The calculation of kernal hash can be expressed in pseudo-code as:
While(true){ Foreach(utxo in wallet){ blockTime = currentTime - currentTime % 16 posDifficulty = difficulty * utxo.value Hash = hash(previousStakeModifier << utxo.time << utxo.hash << utxo.n << blockTime) If(hash < posDifficulty){ Done } } Wait 16s -- wait 16 seconds, until the block time can be changed } 
Through the above process, we find that one of the UTXOs can be used to generate a staking transaction. This staking transaction has 1 vin, the UTXO we found. At the same time this staking transaction has at least two vouts, the first one is empty, which is used to identify the blockchain, the second vout is an OP_RETURN transaction containing only one public key, or contains the pay-to-pub-key script. The role of the latter is relatively pure (payment), and data transactions can have more uses (such as an independent block signature machine) without destroying the original UTXO model.
Finally, all transactions in the mempool will be added to the block. What we need to do next is generate the signature. This signature must use the public key corresponding to the second vout of the staking transaction. The actual transaction data is calculated by block hash. After signing, we can broadcast this block to the network. Other nodes in the network will verify the block. If the block is valid, the node will accept the block and connect it to its own blockchain while broadcasting the new block to other nodes it connects to.
Through the above steps, we can get a complete and secure PoS3.0 blockchain. PoS3.0 is considered to be the best consensus mechanism against malicious attacks in a fully decentralized consensus system. Why is this conclusion? We can understand the history of PoS development.
The development of PoS
PoS has a long history. Here is a brief description:
PoS1.0 — Applied in Peercoin , heavily dependent on coin age (ie, the time elapsed since UTXO was spent), the higher the coin age, the lower the difficulty of mining. This has the side effect that the user will choose to open a wallet for a long period of time (for example, one month or longer), so that the UTXO of the wallet will have a relatively large currency and the user can quickly find a new block. This will lead to double-spend attacks more easily. Peercoin itself is not affected by this, because it uses PoW and PoS mixing mechanisms, and PoW can reduce this negative effect.
PoS2.0 — The coin age was removed from the consensus mechanism and a different stake modifier was used than PoS1.0. The contents of the amendments are relatively numerous, but basically they are all about how to remove the coin age and realize the security consensus mechanism without using the PoW/PoS hybrid mode.
PoS3.0 — PoS3.0 can actually be said to be an upgraded version of PoS2.0. In PoS2.0, the snapshot modifier also contains the block time of the previous block, which was removed in 3.0, mainly to prevent the so-called "short-range" attack, that is, it is possible to change the previous area by traversing. Block time to traverse mining. PoS2.0 uses block time and transaction time to determine the age of UTXO, which is slightly different from the previous coinage age. It indicates that a UTXO can be used for the minimum number of confirmations required by staking. The UTXO age in PoS 3.0 becomes simpler, it is determined by the height of the block. This avoids the introduction of a less accurate timestamp in the blockchain and can effectively immunize the "timewarp" attack. PoS3.0 also adds OP_RETURN support for staking transactions, making voutYou can include only the public key, not necessarily the full pay-to-pubkey script.
submitted by thisthingismud to Qtum [link] [comments]

Let's get serious for a minute

Allright, to start up I'm possibly pro fork and shurely against what btc is turning into. (settlement layer bullshit)
Still, I had a few concerns about this fork, while reading around this thread it seems you guys want to make an altcoin with the name bitcoin... I read about switching the algo or adding an 2nd asic resistant algo, new logo, do you guys really want to fork btc or what ?!?
My idea of a fork is getting 51% of the hashrate (I can contribute 10-20ths for a limited time with my s2s and same gen equipment) and getting the control of the REAL btc back from core, NOT making another coin...
To get support we need to make something better than what you had before, how do you think you'll get the Chinese miners with an algo that will need them to change their asics? And we've worked so hard to get the name known and people to use btc, why would we want to change that?
Anyways, that's what I think, the initiative to fork is great to take back control over the mainchain, but we need to make the exact same replica with minor changes (blocksize for example), not a whole new logo, chain etc.(no pun intended)
Cheers, I'd be happy to discuss more about this if I'm not downvoted to oblivion :)
EDIT : after seeing the replies, it seems this fork doesn't coincide with what I think is a solution, I'll keep it in mind but I won't switch back on 1w/ghs HW with my 0,2eukw to support it (as of now)
I wish you all the best and hope I change my mind when you have a more precise roadmap :)
submitted by QuentinZRC to btcfork [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mining has become more profitable after the fall of complexity

Bitcoin mining has become more profitable after the fall of complexity

Mine Bitcoin is now easier - some time after the fall of the cryptocurrency hashrate, the complexity of its mining has decreased according to the network rules. Recall that for almost the whole of 2018, Bitcoin hashrate grew, not paying attention to the falling price of cryptocurrency. It seems that now the miners have felt a serious blow to the market.
According to, the hash rate and complexity of the extraction of cryptocurrency has experienced a sharp drop for several weeks in a row. At the moment, the Bitcoin hashrate has dropped to almost 30 EH/s. In other words, the indicator returned to its June value.
Fernando Ulrich, chief analyst at XDEX, noted that the current hash rate drop is one of the most severe in the short history of cryptocurrency. The last time miners were so disappointed in Bitcoin back in 2011. Ulrich also published detailed statistics on all more or less noticeable hash rate drops.
What do you think? What is Bitcoin waiting for in the coming months?
#депозиты #торговля #биткоин #криптовалюта #биржа#инвестиции #btc #bitfex #exchange #eth #cryptoexchange#защита #аккаунт#криптовалюта #kwh #trading #cryptoexchange #bitcoin#smartcontract
submitted by BitFlipli to Bitfex [link] [comments]

My hardware are not appearing on nicehash's profitability calculator PLEASE HELP

I am having difficulties figuring out if I can make a profit with this hardware. Here is my current situation:
I am looking into getting these ASIC cards but dont worry about the costs:
2x Bitmain AntMiner s2
6x BTC Garden AM V2
My $kw/h is about $0.07 for about only 17 hours of the day.
1 Antminer s2 is 1,000 GH/s and 1,000W
1 BTC Garden v2 is g10 GH/s and 650W
NiceHash doesnt have calculations to find my profits. Can you please help me find out if I would be making profit and if so how much per chip? Im new to Bitcoin mining and need some guidance.
submitted by SpiceyNipplez to NiceHash [link] [comments]

Is it technically possible to switch from CryptoNite to Proof-of-Stake for Monero?

I am wondering if after 4 years, how the hash power from Monero will be paid for. I think BlackCoin's PoS2.0 is much better than Proof-of-Work. In Bitcoin I do not see it either that transaction fees will be able to pay the miners... So would be cute if Monero can technically switch from PoW to PoS.
Also, would staking under PoS eliminate the anonymity? Or using Tor I guess this could be eliminated as well? Thanks.
submitted by mexbit to Monero [link] [comments]

Per-block non-interactive Schnorr signature aggregation | adiabat | May 07 2017

adiabat on May 07 2017:
If / when Schnorr signatures are deployed in a future witness version, it
may be possible to have non-interactive partial aggregation of the
signatures on a per-block basis. This could save quite a bit of space. It
seems not to have any security problems but this mailing list is very
good at finding vulnerabilities so that type of feedback is the main reason
I'm writing :) (A quick explanation of why this is horribly broken could
save me lots of time!)
(also sorry if this has been discussed; didn't see anything)
Quick recap / context of Schnorr sigs:
There are a bunch of private keys x1, x2, x3...
multiply by generator G to get x1G = P1, x2G = P2, x3G = P3
Everyone makes their sighash m1, m2, m3, and their random nonces k1, k2, k3.
To sign, people calculate s values:
s1 = k1 - h(m1, R1, P1)x1
s2 = k2 - h(m2, R2, P2)x2
(adding the P2 into the e hash value is not in most literature /
explanations but helps with some attacks; I beleive that's the current
thinking. Anyway it doesn't matter for this idea)
Signature 1 is [R1, s1]. Verifiers check, given P1, m1, R1, s1:
s1G =? R1 - h(m1, R1, P1)P1
You can interactively make aggregate signatures, which requires
co-signers to build an aggregate R value by coming up with their own k
values, sharing their R with the co-signers, adding up the R's to get a
summed R, and using that to sign.
Non-interactively though, it seems like you can aggregate half the
signature. The R values are unique to the [m, P] pair, but the s's can be
summed up:
s1 + s2 = k1 + k2 - h(m1, R1, P1)x1 - h(m2, R2, P2)x2
(s1 + s2)G = R1 + R2 - h(m1, R1, P1)P1 - h(m2, R2, P2)P2
To use this property in Bitcoin, when making transactions, wallets can sign
in the normal way, and the signature, consisting of [R, s] goes into the
witness stack. When miners generate a block, they remove the s-value from
all compatible inputs, and commit to the aggregate s-value in the coinbase
transaction (either in a new OP_RETURN or alongside the existing witness
commitment structure).
The obvious advatage is that signatures go down to 32 bytes each, so you
can fit more of them in a block, and they take up less disk and network
space. (In IBD; if a node maintains a mempool they'll need to receive all
the separate s-values)
Another advatage is that block verification is sped up. For individual
signatures, the computation involves:
e = h(m1, R1, P1) <- hash function, super fast
e*P <- point multiplication, slowest
R - e*P <- point addidion, pretty fast
s*G <- base point multiplication, pretty slow
with s-aggregate verification, the first three steps are still carried out
on each signature, but the s*G operation only needs to be done once.
Instead another point addition per signature is needed, where you have some
accumulator and add in the left side:
A += R - e*P
this can be parallelized pretty well as it's commutative.
The main downside I can see (assuming this actually works) is that it's
hard to cache signatures and quickly validate a block after it has come
in. It might not be as bad as it first seems, as validation given chached
signatures looks possible without any elliptic curve operations. Keep an
aggregate s-value (which is a scalar) for all the txs in your mempool.
When a block comes in, subtract all the s-values for txs not included in
the block. If the block includes txs you weren't aware of, request them in
the same way compact blocks works, and get the full signature for those
txs. It could be several thousand operations, but those are all bigInt
modular additions / subtractions which I believe are pretty quick in
comparison with point additions / multiplications.
There may be other complications due to the fact that the witness-txids
change when building a block. TXIDs don't change though so should be
possible to keep track of things OK.
Also you can't "fail fast" for the signature verification; you have to add
everything up before you can tell if it's correct. Probably not a big deal
as PoW check comes first, and invalid blocks are pretty uncommon and quite
Would be interested to hear if this idea looks promising.
Andrew Polestra mentioned something like this in the context of CT /
mimblewimble transactions a while ago, but it seems it may be applicable to
regular bitcoin Schnorr txs.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

10-30 23:33 - 'I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X. / We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash! / 1...' by /u/1MB_Bitcoin_Forever removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min

I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X.
We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash!
1MB bitcoin will allow ordinary people like us to have more power!!!
Source - [link]1
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: 1MB_Bitcoin_Forever
1: l*ca***tcoinc*sh.*rg/ne*s/7/How_*id_Bitc**n*Get_*o_*es*y*_*Cas*,*Bi*coin_Seg*it,_Bi*c**n_Gold*_*itcoin*S1X,_***coin_S2*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

10-30 23:33 - 'I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X. / We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash!...' by /u/1MB_Bitcoin_Forever removed from /r/Bitcoin within 31-41min

I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X.
We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash!
1MB bitcoin will allow ordinary people like us to have more power!!!
Source - [link]1
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: 1MB_Bitcoin_Forever
1: **ca*bitc*in****.org*news/7*How_Di*_Bitcoin_Get_So_Me**y*_B**sh,*Bit**i*_S*gwit,_Bit**in_G*ld,_Bi**oin_S1*,_Bitcoi**S2*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

10-30 23:33 - 'I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X. / We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash!...' by /u/1MB_Bitcoin_Forever removed from /r/Bitcoin within 21-31min

I have been reading up more and more and now I am a firm supporter of the NO2X.
We do not want miners centralization, fuck Jihan and fuck Roger. They want to steal bitcoin from us. They can stick to their bcash!
1mb bitcoin will allow ordinary people like us to have more power!!!
Source - [link]1
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: 1MB_Bitcoin_Forever
1: l**a**itc*in**s*.org/n*w*/7/Ho*_Di*_Bit*oi*_Get_So_Messy?_BC***,_*i*coi*_Segwit,_Bit*oin*Gold,*Bi*co**_*1X,_*itco*n_S2*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Blackcoin/Peercoin Fireside Chat ;)

Quote from: Sentinelrv on Peercointak, re Blackcoin/PoS2.0: "Was any attempt ever made to reach out to the Peercoin community or Sunny King to implement these security changes? As far as I know, no attempt was ever made to work with us, unless it was in private. If an attempt WAS made and the ideas were rejected by our community or Sunny King, then I could understand creating Blackcoin, since there would have been no other way to implement these changes.
As I understand it though, no attempt was ever made to work with the original creators of Peercoin and proof-of-stake, and the creation of Blackcoin has led to unnecessary further division among proof-of-stake supporters. This division could have been avoided if the creators of Blackcoin would have just reached out to us first with their concerns and ideas. Am I mistaken here?
I applaud you for your work on Blackcoin, but I just don't understand why we couldn't have worked together on things like this, so that we'd all benefit from a stronger community."
Thank you for your thoughtful and articulate response, and for your acknowledgment of our work. I admit that I am torn between opposing views on some of what you've expressed. You see, in a sense, what I'd most like to have is simply 'the best possible coin', and a vast community focused around supporting, refining, using, and promoting it to the world. Just as (again, in a sense) I would like to see one harmonious world-government rather than competing nations perpetually at war. But then, no. There is something not only unrealistic, but also undesirable about such visions. Something monolithic, engulfing, the ultimate nightmare of centralization.
I wonder, did Sunny King ever reach out to the Bitcoin community, to suggest the changes that Peercoin ultimately brought? Or did Charlie Lee do so, with his new 'asic-resistant' scrypt algo idea? Did they make that a priority, and in the name of working together initially submit their ideas to the higher authority for approval? And did they only then, upon meeting rejection, embark on the rebellious enterprise of a new coin (with the unfortunate side-effect of diverting attention, talented developers, and sacred MARKET CAP from Bitcoin)? Doubtful. I bet neither of them lost much sleep over the matter, or even gave it the least thought. They had exciting ideas, they ran with them.
The phrase 'permissionless innovation' is often bandied about in the most glowing terms in the crypto-world. Bitcoin people love to talk about that wonderful atmosphere of freedom, don't they? But god help you if you create an altcoin!
Believe me, Blackcoin people have done their share of bitching about all the forks, clones and knock-offs that we inspired. We often indiscriminately called them scams. Just as some Peercoiners called us a scam. Just as Bitcoin called Peercoin a scam. Just as banks call Bitcoin a scam. Somehow it is all so...predictable. It reminds me of something Abraham Lincoln pointed out about political negotiations between different countries. He said, as I remember it, that it is wrong to expect any of them to see beyond their own monetary self-interest. They wont. Because they can't.
Maybe I am mistaken, but I like to think at least few people in Peercoin were proud and pleased to see Blackcoin happen, for many reasons. Blackcoin has arguably done more to bring attention to proof-of-stake than Peercoin itself. And it has continued to innovate upon the protocol and alter its security approach in significant and interesting ways. It has furthered the great experiment.
Worth noting as well, how nearly every new coin after Blackcoin launched went full PoS after a compressed PoW distribution period, (where did they get that ballsy idea?). And a year down the road, of all those new PoS coins only Blackcoin has had a thriving and successful multipool to continue distribution to hundreds (at times even even thousands) of miners via multi-algo 'indirect' mining. That was Blackcoin's idea too. It was quickly copied by dozens. Now the other 'me too' multipoools have nearly all died-off, along with many of the coins who attempted them. Clearly we are doing something right. Many things, in my opinion.
In conclusion, I'd like to say that your vision of cooperation and working together is not excluded merely by the fact that we don't operate under the umbrella of a single coin. We can communicate, we can cross-pollinate ideas, we can go beyond crypto-xenophobia and seek out potential community synergies. If we try those things, some good is very likely to come of it. --Jabulon
submitted by Thereal_Jabulon to blackcoin [link] [comments]

What's a good site for ASICs and is it worth mining still?

I was looking at the Antminer S2 (1TH/s) and coinwarz was claiming that I'd be making 27 bucks in profit considering my power costs, etc. It's looking better than scrypt right now. I have been a scrypt miner, started with Dogecoin. I am also curious about bitcoin and whether it's worth blowing something on the order of $1500 USD on some good miner(s) or just throwing my money at Coinbase to get bitcoin right now.
submitted by hautdoge to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Antpool 24 Hour Earnings?

Hello there, I have just started mining bitcoins by using 3 Antminer S2's (I know they are old but still gotta start somewhere...) Each miner consistently gets 1 TH/s and what I am wondering is if anyone knows what the 24 Hour earnings tab means in AntPool. It shows I should be making 24 Hours Earnings BTC 0.02878481 But I really am making about this much per day: Account Balance BTC 0.00684909. I have been using PPLNS but still I doubt that a luck factor would take that much out of my profits of mining... Does anyone have any knowledge of this or is this just an issue of the site? Also if anyone has any information that might help a newbie miner get started would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
submitted by miekshreds to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Non-outsourceable puzzles questions

Have just finished Lecture 8.4. Nonoutsourceable Puzzles of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies on Coursera and got some questions.
  1. Just to confirm: Is it that s1 (signature 1) is Sign(SecretKey, prev || nonce) and s2 (signature 2) is Sign(SecretKey, prev || mrkl_root)?
  2. Why isn't mrkl_root included in PoW? It's one of the critical information. Leaving it out of PoW just seems wrong to me. Since the miner is free to choose what transactions to include after PoW, it's easier to launch an attack. For example, the miner can construct many blocks, which are all valid because PoW is valid, and broadcast them to Bitcoin network. Now the network will be multiple-forked. In addition, the attack is penalty-free, at least in the short term, because whichever fork wins, he gets to keep the reward.
  3. Is the technology scheduled to be included in Bitcoin by Core team?
submitted by exab to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Paper] Publish or Perish: A Backward-Compatible Defense against Selfish Mining in Bitcoin

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 97%.
Bitcoin's designer implicitly assumed the fairness of the mining protocol: as long as more than half of the mining power follows the protocol, the chance that a miner can earn the next block reward is proportional to the miner's computational power.
A selfish miner with 48% of total mining power earns 89% and 83% of mining rewards within uniform tie breaking and freshness preferred, respectively, given that all other miners follow honest mining strategy.
These five actions are adequate because they cover all combinations of selfish miner's chain selection and reasonable public weight that might affect the honest h2 time network s2 publishing time block found by honest miners parent block found by the selfish miner uncle count in weight of public chain count in weight of selfish miner' s chain Fig.
Specifically, if the honest miner mines two blocks on the honest chain after a selfish block is found, a rational selfish miner would be forced to adopt in our scheme whereas in uniform tie breaking, the miner tries to catch up from behind.
If the honest miner finds one block after the selfish miner finds two blocks, a rational selfish miner chooses override in our scheme and claim the block rewards instead of risking them.
Selfish miner's expected relative revenue Selfish miner's expected relative revenue 0.8 Ideal 0.7 k=1 k=2 0.6 k=3 k=∞ 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 Selfish miner's mining power share 0.55 Fig.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: mine#1 block#2 selfish#3 chain#4 defense#5
Post found in /Bitcoin and /BitcoinAll.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

How do you prepare for Bitcoin Classic with your mining equipment?

Would one be able to upgrade mining computers like the linked one to Bitcoin Classic or how does it work?
submitted by ivanraszl to btc [link] [comments]

Bitmain Antminer S1 180Gh/s ASIC Miner - Mining Overview Review PC Building Simulator S2# 77 Bitcoin Mining - YouTube 3 TH/s Bitcoin Mining Rig part 1 Antminer S1 Bitcoin Asic Overclock Instructions bitmain antminer S2 1th bitcoin asic miner

Antminer S2 for mining SHA-256 - 1 TH/s hashrate and 1000 W power consumption. ASIC can be used for mining 43 different coins. With the great price and performance of the S1, it looks like Bitmain is going to be able to do it again with their new S2 model, as well. Sipping power 1 watt per GH/s, it will make it a successful Bitcoin miner over the long haul. I am looking forward to trying one of these and publish my results here on A miner is a hardware used for mining these currencies and there is the best hardware like antminer s2. Currently, a single Bitcoin can run between 450 and 900 US dollars each and there are only 21 million available or yet to be created. It is expected that it will help in reducing the possibility of inflation in the market. As it is an online monetary system, it is expected to draw the ... Das Miner-Setup und die Konfiguration von Sigominer S2 x11 Dash Miner sind wie bei jedem anderen Crypto Miner einfach, wenn Sie neu im Mining sind und nichts über Mining wissen. Nehmen Sie Kontakt mit uns auf. Bei Problemen und Anfragen kontaktieren Sie uns gerne. Wir helfen Ihnen gerne weiter. Sehr geehrte Kunden, Bitte beachten Sie, dass alle Verkaufsanfragen über die direkten E-Mail ... The new S2 miners do come a bit more expensive than 5x AntMiner S1 miners overclocked to 200 GHs each to give you a total of 1000 GHS with a price of less than 5 BTC. The difference however is that the power consumption for the S2 miner is 1000W and for the same hashrate with S1 miners you would get roughly about 2100-2100W. So with S1 you get ...

[index] [26534] [27057] [40477] [8316] [28327] [31832] [40806] [48577] [28850] [39951]

Bitmain Antminer S1 180Gh/s ASIC Miner - Mining Overview Review

UCoustic 24U Active Maple Wood Rack Cabinet with Bitcoin miners inside: BITMAIN AntMiner S2 BITMAIN AntMiner S1 KnCMiner Jupiter (October version) Spondoolies-Tech SP10 Dawson Butterfly Labs 7 GH ... CryptoKube Bitcoin Mining Solution. 360 Bitmain S9 in 40 foot mobile data center - Duration: 2:20. KubeData Systems Inc. - Mobile and modular data centers 8,328 views KOSTENLOS ABONNIEREN : Alle Videos von Play PC Building Simulator S2 in der Playlist schauen Instruction video showing you how to setup your Antminer Bitcoin Asic within 5-10 minutes. Please feel free to leave comments and suggestions. If you felt th... Antminer S1 / S2 / S3 Bitcoin Asic Setup Instructions - Duration: 5:37. Simon Says Tech 44,079 views. 5:37 . How to Overcloack Antminer s3 - Duration: 6:15. 10,741 views. 6:15. WORLD ...