I started an account with cex for bitcoin mining. Have I made the right choice?
So far they seem legit, and not a scam. I need to make a living and mining seems to be a stable source of income even though I havent started. Do you think I have made the right choice in using cex, or is there another that is better for starting out with. I dont have alot of money now, and I am not sure of individuals experiences with cex as to say if its worth it or not, but I need something simple and straight forward to use because I am new to this. Can anyone make recommendation? You can contact me privately.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 $. How can we estimate this?
Get the blockchains Proof-of-Work algorithm
Lookup the average price per hash on NiceHash for this algorithm
Multiply price per hash by total hashrate per second
Now we have an estimated total Proof-of-Work metric measured in dollars per second ($/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:
Bitcoin (SHA-256 @ 40 PH/s) or ($100/s)
Litecoin (Scrypt @ 300 TH/s) or ($10/s)
Bitcoin's average block time is 10 minutes (600 seconds)
6 Bitcoin confirmations on average is 60 minutes (3,600 seconds)
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
At Litecoin's hashrate of $10/s it would take ($360,000 / $10) 36,000 seconds (10 hours) to complete an equivalent amount of work
Litecoin's average block time is 2.5 minutes (150 seconds)
The amount of Litecoin blocks expected over this period of time is (36,000 seconds / 150 seconds) 240 blocks.
Therefore we can say that 240 Litecoin confirmations are roughly equal to 6 Bitcoin confirmations in total amount of work done.
$/s doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.
The $/s values should not be taken as literal costs. For example:
Bitcoin's total $ cost for 6 confirmations is ($100 * 3,600 seconds) $360,000
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 (SHA-256 @ 2 PH/s) or ($5/s)
Zcash (Equihash @ 4 GH/s) or ($3/s)
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:
Is this cryptocurrency the dominant cryptocurrency for it's Proof-of-Work algorithm?
What is the market cap of this cryptocurrency?
What is the daily trading volume of this cryptocurrency?
What is the $ value of this transaction?
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".
[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
I'm ignoring price fluctuations in BTC. I'm assuming that it doesn't drop enough to invalidate the contract. This is a very important point because a lot of people use this in their argument, but there's no reason you need to mine for this, you can just buy and HODL.
I'm using CoinWarz for the profitability calculator, and I'm using the upfront contract cost as hardware cost (it's a one time capital expense), and distribute the maintenance fee as an electricity cost - shown more clearly later.
I assume that network difficulty doubles every 6 months. This is based on looking at BitcoinWisdom. I haven't been able to find a bettemore precise indicator, but if this is relatively close it makes the math very convenient.
I'm using an average over time. If a value changes linearly over time (network difficulty) and you know the values of the endpoints, you can say that the value of the each individual point in that time period is the average between the endpoints. More illustratively, if I am earning $1/day today, and I believe I will be earning $0.50/day in one year, I can say that on average my earnings over the next year are $0.75/day.
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.
I've been working on a bot for crypto subs like /r/bitcoin for a few days now. Say hello to crypto_bot!
Hey guys, I've been working on crypto_bot for some time now. It provides a bunch of features that I hope will enhance your experience on /bitcoin (and any other subreddit). You can call it by mentioning it in a comment. I started working on this a few days ago. I'm constantly adding new features and will update this post when I do, but if you're interested I'll post all updates and some tips at /crypto_bot. Please either comment here, message me, or post there if you'd like to report a bug, request a feature, or offer feedback. There's also one hidden command :) You can call multiple commands in one comment. Here's a description of the commands you can use:
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin from an average of six of the top bitcoin exchanges (BTC-E, Bitstamp, Bitfinex, Coinbase, Kraken, Cryptsy).
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin at seven exchanges (all of the ones listed above, plus LocalBitcoins). Also lists the average at the bottom.
Responds with the USD price of one bitcoin from [exchange] (any of the seven listed above).
Responds with the USD price of one litecoin, or the price of 1 doge and 1,000 doge.
crypto_bot litecoin|ltc [exchange]
Responds with the USD price of one litecoin from BTC-E, Bitfinex, Kraken, or Cryptsy.
Responds with the price of one bitcoin in the specified currency. Available currencies (symbols): JPY, CNY, SGD, HKD, CAD, NZD, AUD, CLP, GBP, DKK, SEK, ISK, CHF, BRL, EUR, RUB, PLN, THB, KRW, TWD.
crypto_bot [about|info] [arg]
Responds with a short description about [arg], as well as a link to an external site (Wikipedia, bitcoin.it, and some others) for more information. You can list multiple arguments and get a description for each. Available arguments: bitcoin, block chain, transaction, address, genesis, satoshi, mining, confirmation, coinbase, gox, cold wallet, hot wallet.
Responds with calculations and information about how a miner would do with the above data (mining calculator). The only required field is mining speed. Order of the arguments does not matter. Everything other than hashrate defaults to the following if not given: w (watts): 0, kwh ($kilowatt cost/hour): 0, difficulty: current network difficulty, hc$ (hardware cost): $0, $: current bitcoin price in usd (according to Coinbase), % (pool fee): 0. The calculator does not account for nor allow for input of the increase/decrease of difficulty over time, though I may add this feature soon. Working hashing speeds: h/s, kh/s, mh/s, gh/s, th/s, ph/s. Example usage: "crypto_bot calc 30th/s 10w .12kwh hc$55 1.5%" (to make it easier to remember, th/s can also be inputted as ths). This calls the bot with a hashrate of 30 th/s, electricity usage of 10w, a cost of $.12 kWh, a hardware cost of $55, and a pool fee of 1.5%.
crypto_bot number of btc <$amount to convert> [bp$bitcoin price]
Responds with the number of bitcoins you could buy with <$amount to convert>. If the comment specifies a [bp$bitcoin price], it calculates it with that exchange rate. Otherwise, it uses the rate from Coinbase. Example usage: "crypto_bot $419.29 bp$180.32" This calculates how many bitcoins you can buy if you have $419.29 and the bitcoin exchange rate is $180.32.
Signs a message in the bitcoin block chain in a transaction using OP_RETURN. The message must be less than 40 characters. Example usage: "SignMessage! "Post messages in the block chain!"" I hope you find this bot useful! Again, if you have any questions or comments, please either comment on this post, message me, or post on /crypto_bot. Update 1 (June 24, 2015, 17:35): The bot now responds with information if you post a link to a block, transaction, or address on Blockchain.info in a comment, even if you don't call it. For example, if I wrote "https://blockchain.info/block/0000000000000000126448be07fb1f82af19fbbf07dd7e07ebcd08d42c2660cb" in a comment, it would respond with information about block #362,377. Update 2 (July 10, 2015, 1:59): The bot now has two additional commands: "unconfirmed transactions" (or "unconfirmed tx") and "explain transaction delay" (or "explain tx delay"). The first command responds with the number of unconfirmed transactions, and the second explains why transactions might take extra time to confirm. Update 3 (August 24, 2015, 1:34): The bot now responds in a better way than before when transaction ids or addresses are posted. Before, it only responded when the transaction id or address was used in a link to Blockchain.info. Now the bot will respond whenever a transaction id or address is posted at all; a link to Blockchain.info is no longer necessary. Update 4 (August 27, 2015, 3:00): The bot can now sign messages in the Bitcoin block chain using OP_RETURN.
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:
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.
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
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)
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.
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.com – translated) 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 twothreads.
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:
Upbit added DCKRW and DCUSDT pairs. A user reported that DCR deposits and withdrawals are now available.
CoinEx announced the launch of DCBTC and DCBCH pairs.
Bleutrade added DCUSDT pair. Note their reply to our tweet. It was the first exchange to list Decred minutes after launch.
Brazilian exchange OmniTradeadded DCBRL fiat pair following a poll. Worth noting that it is one of the first to integrate Trezor sign-in.
There are reports that DCR was added to Abucoins and Tor Exchange but we don't know much about them.
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.
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.
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: 12, 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:
The Long-Term Bullish Case for Decred by Ben Davidow (medium.com)
Hardware Companies Are Launching Dedicated ASIC Miners for Decred (btcmanager.com)
Iterative Capital partner Chris Dannen and journalist Ben Schiller speak with Marco and Jonathan from Decred at Consensus 2018 (soundcloud)
Decred Review: What is DCR, the Decred Community & Possible Challenges by BitBoy Crypto (youtube)
Decred Founder: Bitcoin Paved Way, Phase 2 Will Shock You! (Marco Peereboom) by Pure Blockchain Wealth (youtube)
Decred & Blocknet: Revolutionary governance for every community feat. JZ at Consensus 2018 (youtube)
Decred coin - Will it be better than Bitcoin? by Bitassist (youtube)
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.
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.
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. Threepure PoWcoins 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.
New people please read this. [upvote for visibility please]
I am seeing too many new people come and and getting confused. Litecoin wiki isn't the greatest when it comes to summing up things so I will try to do things as best as I can. I will attempt to explain from what I have learned and answer some questions. Hopefully people smarter than me will also chime in. I will keep this post updated as much as I can. Preface Litecoin is a type to electronic currency. It is just like Bitcoin but it there are differences. Difference explained here. If you are starting to mine now chances are that you have missed the Bitcoin mining train. If you really want your time and processing power to not go to waste you should mine LTC because the access to BTC from there is much easier. Mining. What is it? Let's get this straight. When making any financial commitment to this be prepared to do it with "throw away" money. Mining is all about the hashrate and is measured in KH/s (KiloHash/sec). Unlike the powerful ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) that are used to mine bitcoins using hashrates in the GH/s and even TH/s, litecoin mining has only been able to achieve at the very best MH/s. I think the highest I've seen is 130 MH/s so far. Which leads us to our next section. Mining Hardware While CPU mining is still a thing it is not as powerful as GPU mining. Your laptop might be able to get 1 a month. However, I encourage you to consult this list first. List of hardware comparison You will find the highest of processors can maybe pull 100 KH/s and if we put this into a litecoin mining calculator it doesn't give us much. Another reason why you don't want to mine with your CPU is pretty simple. You are going to destroy it. So this leaves us with GPUs. Over the past few months (and years) the HD 7950 has been the favourite because it drains less power and has a pretty good hashrate. But recently the introduction of the R9 290 (not the x) has changed the game a bit. People are getting 850 KH/s - 900 KH/s with that card. It's crazy. Should I mine? Honestly given the current difficulty you can make a solid rig for about $1100 with a hashrate of 1700 KH/s which would give you your investment back in about a month and a half. I am sure people out there can create something for much cheaper. Here is a good example of a setup as suggested by dystopiats PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant / Benchmarks
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available.
Generated by PCPartPicker 2013-11-29 00:52 EST-0500
Estimated Hashrate (with GPU overclocking) : 1900 KH/s Hardware Fundamentals CPU - Do you need a powerful CPU? No but make sure it is a decent one. AMD CPUs are cheap to buy right now with tons of power. Feel free to use a Sempron or Celeron depending on what Motherboard you go with. RAM - Try to get at least 4 GB so as to not run into any trouble. Memory is cheap these days. I am saying 4 GB only because of Windoze. If you are plan to run this on Linux you can even get away with less memory. HDD Any good ol 7200 RPM hard drive will do. Make sure it is appropriate. No point in buying a 1TB hard drive. Since, this is a newbie's guide I assumed most won't know how to run linux, but incase you do you can get a USB flash drive and run linux from it thus removing the need for hard drive all toghether. (thanks dystopiats) GPU - Consult the list of hardware of hardware I posted above. Make sure you consider the KH/s/W ratio. To me the 290 is the best option but you can skimp down to 7950 if you like. PSU - THIS IS BLOODY IMPORTANT. Most modern GPUs are power hungry so please make sure you are well within the limits of your power consumption. MOTHERBOARD - Ok, so a pretty popular board right now is Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 and the ASRock 970 Extreme4. Some people are even going for Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 and even the mighty Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD7 because it has more PCI-E slots. 6 to be exact. However you may not need that much. With risers you can get more shoved into less. PCI-E RISERS - These are called risers. They come in x16 to x16 and x1 to x16 connections. Here is the general rule of thumb. This is very important. Always get a POWERED riser otherwise you will burn a hole in your MoBo. A powered rise as a molex connector so that additional power from PSU can be supplied. When it comes to hardware I've provided the most basic knowledge you need. Also, take a look at cryptobader's website. This is very helpful. Please visit the mining section of Litecoin Forums and the litecoinmining subreddit for more indepth info. Mining Software Now that you have assembled your hardware now you need to get into a pool. But before you do that you need a mining software. There are many different ones but the one that is most popular is cgminer. Download it and make sure you read the README. It is a very robust piece of software. Please read this if you want to know more. (thanks BalzOnYer4Head) Mining Pools Now that your hardware and software is ready. I know nothing about solo mining other than the fact that you have to be very lucky and respectable amount of hashing power to decrypt a block. So it is better to join pools. I have been pool hopping for a bit and really liked give-me-coin previously known to the community as give-me-ltc. They have a nice mobile app and 0% pool fees. This is really a personal preference. Take a look at this list and try some yourself. How do I connect to a pool? Most pools will give you a tutorial on how to but the basics are as follows:
Signup for a pool
Create a worker for your account. Usually one worker per rig (Yes people have multiple rigs) is generally a good idea.
Create a .run file. Open up notepad and type cgminer.exe -o (address_to_the_miningpool:port_number) -u (yourusername.workername) -p (your_worker_password_if_you_made_one). Then File>Save As>runcgminer.run (Make sure the drop down is set to "All Files" and .txt document.) and save in the same folder as cgminer. That's it.
Double click on runcgminer.run (or whatever you named it) and have fun mining.
Mining Profitability This game is not easy. If it was, practically everyone would be doing it. This is strictly a numbers game and there are calculations available that can help you determine your risk on your investments. 4 variables you need to consider when you are starting to mine: Hardware cost: The cost of your physical hardware to run this whole operation. Power: Measured in $/KwH is also known as the operating cost. Difficulty rate: To put it in layman's terms the increase in difficulty is inversely proportional to amount of coin you can mine. The harder the difficulty the harder it is to mine coin. Right now difficulty is rising at about 18% per 3 days. This can and will change since all you miners are soon going to jump on the band wagon. Your sanity: I am not going to tell you to keep calm and chive on because quiet frankly that is stupid. What I will tell you not to get too carried away. You will pull you hair out. Seriously. Next thing you will need is a simple tool. A mining profitability calculator. I have two favourite ones. coinwarz I like this one cause it is simple. The fields are self explanatory. Try it. bitcoinwisdom I like this one because it is a more real life scenario calculator and more complicated one (not really). It also takes increasing difficulty into account. Please note: This is the absolute basic info you need. If you have more questions feel free to ask and or google it! More Below.
Thinking of ordering an ASIC? There is most likely nothing you can order right now that will earn you more BTC than you can buy right now. In fact, there is not really anything you can order right now that will ROI, even using generous figures.
Disclaimer: I am a miner and have ASICs, so there is a conflict of interest in posting this. But I'm not just trying to talk potential competition out of mining. If you think you'd enjoy it and aren't driven solely by making a profit, I've always recommended it when asked. Disclaimer 2: You will likely see much better ROI on buying Bitcoins than mining them. Some already understand this and want to mine anyway, and I am one of those (although I had bought coins along with ordering ASICs). I'm sure this point will be echoed repeatedly. Disclaimer 3: This is based on the mining calculator and ASIC info currently listed on TGB (using default 117% monthly increase in difficulty). This is only a guess based on past performance, which many consider to be too low of a guess. But for the sake of this post, I'd rather take a conservative (low) guess to present a best-case scenario. Disclaimer 4: I'm tired. I apologize for the disclaimers, but I've used reddit enough to know I need to qualify every sentence before I write it. After receiving the ASICs I ordered 7+ months ago, I wanted to compare my investment with the new miners that have appeared since I ordered. It turns out that anything you were to order right now will most likely lose money, it's just a matter of how much you want to lose. If anything is incorrect here feel free to prove otherwise. I'd appreciate any corrections. My reason for posting is because I was honestly surprised by what I found, but maybe my math is wrong or maybe TGB's data is wrong. The lowest cost-per-Gh/s available to pre-order right now is $3, but those miners won't be shipping until January 2014 (Cointerra). The next option would be $4 shipping in December (Bitmine). Even at these low prices-per-Gh/s, that is too late. The lowest cost-per-Gh/s shipping in November is $9.10 (KnC) but even if you start mining November 1st, that is not enough. This is all assuming these companies ship and ship on time. KnC has started shipping, but if you were to order today you definitely won't be mining all of November. Take these figures with a grain of salt. You'll want to make your own calculations before making any investment decision, but these are rough estimates.
If you start mining at the beginning of November, you'll need to have paid less than $8/Gh/s to see ROI (less than 0.15 BTC profit).
If you start mining at the beginning of December, you'll need to have paid less than $3/Gh/s to see ROI (less than 0.4 BTC profit).
If you start mining at the beginning of January, you'll need to have paid less than $1/Gh/s to see ROI (less than 0.4 BTC profit).
These calculations are based on a 100Gh/s miner running at 50W (0.5W/Gh which is below what any listed miner is capable of achieving: lowest is 0.6W/Gh). If you scale it up to a 1Th/s miner running at 500W, you get about $0.60 extra to spend per Gh/s and still get the same ROI. So unless you have free electricity or you're an Electrical Engineer that dabbles in the black arts, your ROI will be even less likely. This is also using a $0.10/kWh rate, which I think is also low for many people. There are a lot of variables here, so this is in no way a guaranteed outcome. To determine ROI I used BTC instead of USD, so the future price of Bitcoin is not a factor here. If you're buying a miner in USD (or other fiat) and are basing ROI on that same currency, then the future BTC price when you sell your mined coins would matter. This also doesn't account for "miner protection plans" which we have yet to see in action so it's difficult to say how well they'll work. The way I personally look at it: most hobbies don't ROI and if you think mining is valid hobby and can take a loss then go for it. There can be more to mining than "plugging it in and watching it" as is usually the argument of people who don't mine. Again, please feel free to correct any mistakes. It's very late here and I did this quickly. This is as much of a question asking if my thinking is correct as it is a notice to potential ASIC buyers. I'll edit this post as necessary. TL;DR - If profit is your only goal, don't buy an ASIC right now.
"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:
The guardian: "Bitcoin mining consumes more electricity a year than Ireland "
Express.co.uk "SHOCK CLAIM: Bitcoin is DESTROYING the planet and uses as much energy as DENMARK"
Vice: "Bitcoin Could Consume as Much Electricity as Denmark by 2020"
Mashable: "How to fix Bitcoin's energy-consumption problem"
CBS News:"Bitcoin mining consumes more energy than 159 countries"
Newscientist : "Bitcoin mining uses more energy than Ecuador – but there’s a fix"
CNN: "Bitcoin boom may be a disaster for the environment"
Bloomberg: "Bitcoin's Exorbitant Energy Costs May Prove to Be Biggest Risk"
The list goes on...
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
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.
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...
Disregard the previous step
Calculate the current total hashrate on the network: 14.12 ExaHashes/s at the time of these lines
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.
Has the Bitcoin Hash Rate Peaked? Comparisons with Oil Show Interesting Findings
https://preview.redd.it/85lpl2md4e221.png?width=690&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d3bab69f0570a96f55d790d25f1b1ab08c0a49b https://cryptoiq.co/the-bitcoin-mining-hash-rate-has-similarities-to-peak-oil/ The Bitcoin mining hash rate had been exponentially increasing on average since the genesis block in 2009, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, to EH/s, and it reached an all-time record high of 62 EH/s on 26 August 2018. Since this peak was reached, the Bitcoin mining hash rate gradually plateaued and has now decreased. The chart of Bitcoin mining hash rate actually looks quite similar to a peak oil chart except on a much faster time-scale, as can be seen in the comparison between Bitcoin’s hash rate over the course of 2 years from Blockchain.com and North Sea oil production from an article in The Oil Drum: Europe by Euan Mearns. As explained below, the dynamics between peak oil and peak Bitcoin mining are similar, with the key difference that Bitcoin mining is decentralized and oil is not. https://preview.redd.it/op5ept1g4e221.png?width=512&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b3b35eb631f31a64ed7beb01f283832bd231e4c https://preview.redd.it/nfyhlf4h4e221.png?width=678&format=png&auto=webp&s=46a0ca7e11f274c5678f6421b1eebb788eab5197 Geologist M. King Hubbert is the founder of the peak oil theory, which states that there is a point when the maximum extraction rate of petroleum is reached, after which a terminal decline in production ensues. The peak rate of extraction of Bitcoin of course occurred during the period after the genesis block and before the first block halving, when the block reward was at its maximum of 50 Bitcoins. However, this is not the peak rate of mining profitability, since Bitcoin increased in price by orders of magnitude through the year 2017. The peak rate of Bitcoin mining profits undoubtedly was simultaneous with Bitcoin’s all-time record high of USD 20,000 in December 2017. The reason the peak hash rate did not coincide with the peak rate of Bitcoin mining profits is because the rally happened so quickly that mining operations were not able to add rigs fast enough, so there was a lag effect. Even for mining operations with large amounts of capital it can take months to obtain the amount of mining equipment that they want, and for other mining operations it took even longer because they had to obtain investors, buy land, build infrastructure, and only then could they install the rigs and begin hashing. The Bitcoin mining hash rate chart implicitly indicates that 30 EH/s of Bitcoin mining equipment has been taken offline due to lack of profitability, which represents tens of billions of USD of wasted rigs. This suggests that Bitcoin miners were caught by surprise by the decline in Bitcoin’s price from USD 20,000 to less than USD 4,000 as of 4 December 2018. Coming back to the peak oil comparison, the current Bitcoin mining scene is like a rapid version of peak oil, combined with lack of coordination. Oil mining is a centralized and coordinated activity, where the oil is prospected, land is leased out and then an appropriate number of wells are drilled. With oil mining, companies cannot drill as many wells as they want, or drill wells on someone else’s lease, since this is all closely controlled by contractual agreements. Bitcoin mining is decentralized, and no one has a lease or contract to only mine with a certain amount of hash rate. Anyone in the world can run as much Bitcoin mining rigs as they can afford. The effect is that people all around the world are sticking their straws into the Bitcoin mining network all at the same time, and they sucked it dry. Essentially, so many people started up new mining operations at once without coordination, that the Bitcoin mining hash rate went way past its equilibrium, which hurt everyone involved. This is akin to if oil drilling was a decentralized process, and anyone who wanted to drill for oil could drill in the same field. The oil field would be sucked dry really quick, and then most of the drills would be shut down due to lack of profits. There is hope for Bitcoin miners however. The price of Bitcoin simply has to rally, and all of the disenfranchised miners could restart their rigs, and then it would be back to the races and new rigs could begin being added. However, due to the decentralization of Bitcoin mining, the network hash rate will likely periodically rise past its equilibrium point, leading to catastrophic conditions for miners like we are experiencing today at points in the future. The only thing that could prevent the scenario we are experiencing today is a Bitcoin rally that lasts forever, which is obviously not possible. James McAvity tweeted that Bitcoin mining is still profitable in the current environment, and does some simple linear calculations to prove this point. He also argues that miners are forced to keep mining due to business agreements, choose to HODL in expectation of a rally, and continue mining in expectation of a downward difficulty adjustment as other miners go offline. https://twitter.com/jamesmcavity/status/1069669073552736256 Some of what McAvity says is true, but the reality is that Bitcoin mining is a highly non-linear system, and calculating the support level for mining is somewhat pointless, since it is different for every miner. Bitcoin mining profitability depends on Bitcoin’s price, the Bitcoin network hash rate which is directly correlated to mining difficulty, and the technological efficiency of Bitcoin mining rigs. These 3 factors are related in a non-linear and ever-changing way. Instead of trudging away at trying to develop a set of equations that determine mining hash rate behavior, one could simply look at the Bitcoin mining hash rate chart at the beginning of this article to understand what is going on. Bitcoin mining profitability is different for each individual miner, and the hash rate has trended downwards as individual miners have made the decision to shut down rigs. Clearly there was a fundamental mining profitability support level in the USD 6,000-7,000 range, since that is where Bitcoin’s price was when mining peaked and plateaued. There are clearly numerous miners who became unprofitable on the descent from that level to less than USD 4,000 today, and now approximately 50% of the Bitcoin mining equipment that exists cannot profitably mine. The decrease in Bitcoin’s mining difficulty of 15% on 3 December 2018 could help bring some of those miners back online, at least if the price stays at current levels around USD 4,000, but this will not change the overall trend. When it comes down to it, Bitcoin’s price is in control of Bitcoin mining profitability, and if the price goes up we could see a reversal of the hash rate downtrend and eventually a 2nd peak in Bitcoin’s network hash rate. However, if price continues to go down, the Bitcoin mining hash rate chart will follow a similar pattern to peak oil charts. The reality will likely be a combination of both. Bitcoin bear markets tend to last years, and get more severe, but eventually the rally comes and then Bitcoin exceeds its all-time record high. This would lead to a steady decrease in Bitcoin’s mining hash rate like the peak oil chart, followed by a rapid re-engagement of old mining rigs that have been taken offline, and then the addition of new generation Bitcoin mining rigs once the equilibrium hash rate exceeds 60 EH/s.
Profit per month: Disclosure: Mining metrics are calculated based on a network hash rate of 13,823,824,128 GH/s and using a BTC - USD exchange rate of 1 BTC = $ 16838.21. These figures vary based on the total network hash rate and on the BTC to USD conversion rate. Block reward is fixed at 12.5 BTC and future block reward reductions are not taken into account. The average block time used in the calculation is 600 seconds. The electricity price used in generating these metrics is $ 0.132 per kWh. https://www.cryptocompare.com/mining/calculatobtc?HashingPower=14&HashingUnit=TH%2Fs&PowerConsumption=1372&CostPerkWh=0.132 Antminer S9 Specs: https://shop.bitmain.com/antminer_s9_asic_bitcoin_miner.htm?flag=specifications CryptoCompare shows a $790.46 USD profit per month with the following input: 1 BTC = $ 16838.21 Hasting power: 14 Power consumption (w): 1372 Cost per KW/h ($): 0.132 $790 USD/month is the total mined - total cost. $790 is very profitable. Mining 0.05 BTC/month is very good when the current BTC price is $16k. "According to the above inputs, the S9 will produce** 0.285 BTC / $159 per month** and 3.36 BTC / $1939 per year." - June 27, 2017 article https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/hardware/antminer-s9/ buybitcoinworldwide.com June 27, 2017 article shows only a profit of $159/month but BTC then was 1BTC = $2500USD. Is it very profitable to run a bitcoin Antminer S9 now with profit of $790 USD/month?
New Miners: it's NOT profitable to build a rig today -- a more realistic calculator
Every day on the bitcoin irc channels, I hear people talk about the profitability of mining according to some calculator. Lets face it: The easy money came and went a couple months ago and the gold rush is over. I hate to see people deluded by false information, because of calculators that don't take into account the rising difficulty. Here's a more realistic calculator for 1 GH/s if someone were to build a mining rig today, and the price remained constant. It accounts for a 25% difficulty increase each period, which is reasonable. Link: A More Realistic Mining Calculator Don't enable "Predict exchange rate", because that part is seriously flawed. So please, save your money. Don't throw it away on a rig that probably won't be able to recuperate its original value.
Bitcoin Tax Attorney here. I am around for discussion or questions related to Bitcoin Tax treatment, including tax planning opportunities for businesses and individuals.
Anyone have issues with their tax returns due to lots of Bitcoin usage or from the sale and disposition of Bitcoin? Anyone looking for any tax favorable planning opportunities? Either as an individual who sold a bunch for profit or for a business who has begun accepting Bitcoin for the first time. My practice has focused on helping both individuals and businesses for Bitcoin tax related matters for much of this year. I am available for discussion here in the comments, and for more specific matters, please PM me. I'm a tax attorney based in Los Angeles and big bitcoin fan and miner going way back. I've been lurking hear on bitcoin for years. I was a miner back in 2011-2013, build my own custom rigs with 6 Radeon 7970s. Then I was among the first to receive a couple of BFL's 5 gh/s cubes and then one of the first 50 Gh/s. (I knew that was a lawsuit waiting to happen against BFL. Scoundrels) Good memories all around. I still have my spreadsheets keeping track of what I mined. Altogether, with the pools, I mined over 100 bitcoin. Alas, I sold many of them when the price was $300 or less. All this time I was focusing on tax law, finishing Tax LLM courses in Los Angeles. So, it was inevitable that the two interests would merge. I ended up writing a proposal to treat Bitcoin as currency as opposed to property. Here is a link to my paper on this which Tax Notes published as their cover story a few months back, which was completely unexpected but kinda cool to see this niche interest rewarded. Paper: "Bitcoin: Property or Currency?" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2708188 Got to go on a State Bar Delegation to DC to enlighten folks with the power to actually do something about it. Delegation met with IRS Chief Counsel, including people who drafted the Notice treating Bitcoin as property. Also folks from Treasury Dept, Senate Finance Committee, House Ways & Means, etc. I urged for currency treatment (as opposed to property treatment) of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, in fact anything built on the basis of the Blockchain meant as a mode to transact money. If any of you guys had to do your taxes this year, and have bought and spent a lot of Bitcoin, or even just mined and sold, you probably know some of the difficulties I'm alluding to without even mentioning. Should we really have to calculate capital gains/loss on the purchase of a cup of coffee at your neighborhood cryptocurrency friendly coffee shop, for example? Even with purchases at Overstock.com or Dell, you were technically supposed to calculate capital gains and losses and provide supporting backup on your tax returns this year. What a practical and administrative nightmare for both taxpayers and for the IRS who has to wade through this. I feel like some of what I wrote got through to them. As we all know, government lags far behind emerging technologies. But they did seem genuinely interested, and I do not believe my paper and proposal fell upon deaf ears. I have my own law office these days and work with or for many attorneys on various matters, just as I have a number of attorneys assist me. No such thing as a pure solo practitioner these days. No man can afford to be an island. This tax year has been very rewarding and helped a great many tax clients with Bitcoin issues from anything to bookkeeping to strategic planning for the short-term as well as long-term. Any accountant knows the terms LIFO and FIFO, but there's seemingly no hard and fast rules for measurement for when a particular bitcoin was bought and sold for purposes of calculating gains/losses. Also, no hard and fast rules as to where the particular market price of Bitcoin is found on a particular day. Everything is loose, open to interpretation by the tax payer, and with strategic guidance, can prove incredibly tax favorable ultimately. It is wise for a business to accept Bitcoin for many reasons, including that broad opportunity for interpretation while staying true to the property guidance. So, it is ultimately very taxpayer friendly due to this broad leeway. More than that, treating bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as property rather than currency is also taxpayer friendly by definition. Your bitcoin gains will only be taxed at your capital gains rate instead of as ordinary income, a higher rate. I assisted a lot of individuals and even businesses who accepted bitcoin for the first time this year. I intended to post on /bitcoin before to offer my services and to also just allow people to send me questions, which I am happy to discuss in private for free. I got pretty slammed up to tax day, but I'm free now. Just hit me up by private message or shoot me an email at thebitcoinlawyer at g mail. Any questions or thoughts, I'll be around. I'm often around /bitcoin anyway. Love this community. And if I can serve as help for any of you, all the better. Thanks. TL;DR Bitcoin Tax Attorney available for discussion on tax issues here in comments, or for more personalized issues, hit me up by PM
There's been some fantastic work done in this subreddit spreading disinformation researching, criticising, and debunking bitcoin and its sacred cows over the past year, which I would like to celebrate. So here's some posts I saved on bitcoin-related topics. But I started saving things too late... So if you have and/or remember any great posts from the past year, dig them up and post them here. Also, unironically, maybe someone should start a buttcoin wiki First, three pieces of investigative journalism from Buttcoin's top minds. Here Charlie_Shrem examines the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. Key finding: For every Bitcoin transaction, 47 kilograms of CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the miners alone.
Current hash rate: 261,900,382 GH/s Number of transactions per day: 71,331 If we assume rather conservatively that 1GH/s = 1 watt on average, then this would mean 261,900,382W is being used to power the network. We can simplify this to 261,900 kW. Some miners can do better than 1W per 1GH/s, but many if not most do worse (i.e. 2W per 1GH/s to 10W per 1GH/s). Going by the figure of 0.527kg CO2 / kWh found on this page, 0.527kg CO2 x 261,900 kW x 24 hours = 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 per day Now, 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 / 71,331 transactions = 46.44 kg CO2 per transaction For comparison, even going by this Coindesk Article, an ATM produces daily 3.162kg in CO2 emissions. 0.25kwH x 0.527kg CO2 x 24 hours = 3.162kg/day. That means that the carbon emission for one Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 15 ATMs processing perhaps hundreds or thousands of transactions in a day combined.
Earlier this month Frankeh abruptly interrupted remittance-focused annular onanism by issuing a challenge: to find a single instance where bitcoin works out cheaper than a fiat alternative. In case you need to ask... Nope.
Right, there's a bunch of circlejerking happening in /Bitcoin right now so I think it's time to cut through the bullshit one way or another. Country to send money to. The biggest remittance markets are China, Indian and the Philippines. I believe that since /Bitcoin often gives the Philippines as an example of successful Bitcoin remittance then it is the perfect country to use in our challenge. Country to send money from. According to this wikipedia article Malaysia and Canada have the biggest expat Filipino communities. 900,000 and 500,000. So I think we should do the calculations based on both countries. The methodology Most people are not paid in Bitcoin. This is a fact. So for our calculation you must start with fiat, and end in fiat. We're not doing these calculations based on future utility of Bitcoin (No, neo. I'm saying...), we're doing them on the current utility. We will also be doing a bank to bank remittance, because that is nice an constant. We don't need to take into account pick up locations Bitcoin remittance allows and pick up locations normal remittance allows. They'll vary too much. Time will also not be taken into account, as time doesn't actually matter when it comes to remittance. Now, Bitcoiners might shout about this particular rule but let me explain my logic behind this. A foreign worker gets paid every Friday. They start the remittance process on the Friday and regardless of if it takes 0, 3, or 5 days their family back in their home country just needs to base their life around money coming in on remitters pay day + 0, 3, or 5 days. Time taken is of no real value when it comes to remittance. All that matters is that it consistently arrives on day x. As such, any remittance services that take over 5 working days are to be ignored for the sake of this challenge. The amount The amount is going to be 25% of the average wage in each of the countries. This isn't extremely scientific because it doesn't particularly need to be, and the figures are hard to come by. So 1826.75 MYR for Malaysia and 1,398 CAD for Canada. Don't bother complaining about these, they're just examples. Few more ground rules
We're going to be going from bank/bank card to bank regardless, so we're not interested in banking fees on either side. They will be the same regardless of Bitcoin or WU (for example)
It must be from local fiat to foreign fiat.. You can't palm off the conversion fee to the receivers bank to keep fees down.
Any remittance service can be used, as long as Bitcoin is involved for people fighting the Bitcoin corner and Bitcoin isn't used for people fighting the WU (or similar) corner.
You must go through the process and document all the fees for each. Fees to look out for are currency spreads, transaction fees on exchanges, etc
Finally a recent thread, but commendable all the same. Hodldown presents some research leading to facts overturning years of knowledge in the bitcoin wiki. Even us shills have been laughing at bitcoin's pathetic capability of 7 transactions per second. It turns out, we were out by at least a factor of 2:
The average number of transactions per block right now is: 665 transactions The average block size is 0.372731752748842mb. That means the average transaction is 0.00056049887mb. Which means 1mb of transactions (the limit) is 1784 transactions Assuming a 10 minute block (a whole other can of worms) that means there is 10*60 seconds. 1784/600 isn't 7. It's a 2.97. Bitcoin at a technical level can not handle even 3 transactions per second.
On the transaction side: the Bitcoin community seems convinced that banks are ripping them off (which imo they are not), and that it can be fixed by applying some magicsauce over a transaction that is facilitated by banks regardless. So far in practice I haven't seen any evidence of the 'fast' 'cheap' and 'easy' transactions, like most recently with Mollie. They usually compare the fees of BTC>BTC transactions to the fees of Chase Mastercard > a fucking nomad in the Sahara (with consumer protection) to prove their point. The community also seems convinced that the entire world banks the way America does, not realizing that in Europe banking has been dirt cheap for years. And the security... oh boy the security. Half the population can't manage to go without a virus for one year (not an actual statistic), and now you expect them to secure their coins? People are dumb as shit, and software is always one step behind the exploits. We could of course create Bitcoin banks, but then there isn't much left of the original idea. On the 'intrinsic value' side: what the hell is wrong with people. If the underlying product is no good in any aspect, why is it worth much? Right now (that's like 5 years after introduction mind you) BTC is used in 3 types of transactions: Silk Road, SatoshiDice & extremely questionable transactions. It does its job well in that aspect, and that's all it will ever be. The community just turned the technology into a giant ponzi, and they don't care as long as they get paid. The people actually doing business in Bitcoin probably don't care about the price that much.
Someone who deleted their account, on the argument that merchant adoption is a cause of the price drop:
That's just an excuse butters use for the price going down. There's no real difference between selling bitcoin for fiat and exchanging bitcoin for goods and services. Both are a form of sale of bitcoin, an expression of preference for something other than bitcoin. If on balance, there's more flow of bitcoin into fiat, goods or services than there is a corresponding opposing flow, then it is simply the market expressing the view that bitcoin is overvalued. Therefore, the reduction in the value of bitcoin (as valued in fiat) is a sincere expression of the market's view of what the correct price for bitcoin is. Think of an example: A true believer has 20 BTC. He exchanges 10 BTC with Dell for a whizzy server. Dell (or another intermediary) sell the 10 BTC at an exchange in return for fiat. The market price of BTC goes down. The price goes down, simply because a true believer cut his bitcoin holding, he got out. He thought having a server now was worth more to him than 10 tickets to the moon. Which is an expression of a negative view of the future value of bitcoin. A simple "aggressive" sale in trading parlance.
My understanding is that "Satoshi" had been trying to solve the technical problem of convincing a bunch of anonymous, volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed ledger, with no central authority. He thought that he had a solution, in the form of a protocol that included PoW, miner rewards, longest chain, etc. The solution seemed to work on paper; but, as a good scientist, he started an experiment in order to check whether it would also work in practice. For that experiment to be meaningful, it would have been enough if the coin was mined for several years only by a few hundred computer nerds, with the cooperation of some friendly pizza places and bars. The US$ price of the coin was not important to the experiment, and it was never meant to be a weapon for libertarians, a way to buy drugs or evade taxes, a competitor to credit cards or Western Union, a sound investment or item for day-trading. All those "goals" were tacked onto it afterwards.
bob237 comments on the the absurdity of coinbase and it's touted 'rebuy' scheme,
It gets even better than that, actually. A lot of bitcoiners don't like 'losing' bitcoin, and so coinbase added a popular 'repurchase bitcoin' feature that automatically debits your bank account to replenish the BTC in your coinbase account after a purchase. The ultimate result then is that you pay coinbase fiat, they take their cut, and then send that fiat on to the merchant. All 'bitcoins' used in the middle of the transaction are not really bitcoins, but just abstractions in coinbase's internal [off-chain] accounting system. It's a crap version of paypal, no consumer protection and a ton of fees hidden in the spread when you buy your chuck-e-cheese tokens from them.
saigonsquareexplains why ubiquitous tipping isn't the the killer app that it has been touted as, and why bitcoiners may fail to grasp this
Most people understand that there are different sorts of interaction. There are purely social interactions, there are quid-pro-quo interactions, and there are market interactions. Mixing those up causes embarrassment and insult. I wouldn't try to pay my mother-in-law ten bucks for cooking Christmas dinner, and I certainly wouldn't try to pay her ten cents. If a waiter suggests I try the raspberry tart, I won't get away with offering to bake him some cookies next week in compensation; if an office mate suggests I have a slice of her birthday cake, I'll be insulted if she brings me a bill for it. If I spend an hour helping my friend move apartments and he thanks me, I'm fine; we're friends helping each other out. If he pays me two bucks, I'm insulted; he's canceled the social nature of the interaction and instead simply bought my labor for a fraction of its going rate. I'm up two bucks but down a friend. Ancapspergers, not particularly understanding any sort of interaction more complicated than buying a cheeseburger at Wendy's, assume that all interactions are a form of market transaction, and set pricing accordingly. Normal humans get offended by a penny shaving, because it cancels the social nature of the interaction and turns it into a market transaction--and then informs the recipient that his contribution to the transaction was of negligible value.
Where is the network difficulty headed, come November?
Reposted for accuracy. (Read: My math skills are the result of public education.) KNCMiner announced today that they're doing encapsulation on their new Scrypt ASIC chips, and then when they're completed, will be shipping to Stockholm for integration and testing, buildout and finally...shipping! I have read on forums that they have sold 3,000 Titans via pre-order, for batch 1, at 250MH/s nominal performance, each. I figured it was time to look at my "hashrate/difficulty prediction" again and see where it may actually be, by the time the snow's falling. All of the below is calculated with a Litecoin price of around $5. Let's assume for a moment that both Alpha Technology and Mining ASICs Technologies have also sold around 3,000 systems on pre-order (probably a safe bet) and all three expect to ship in September-October. 9,000 systems @ 250MH/s = 2,250,000MH/s. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.25 TH/s being added to the network in roughly two months' time...that we can account for. The current network hashrate, as I post this? Not quite 1 TH/s...it's 896 GH/s. But at the current rate of network expansion, we're going to be 1 TH/s by the time these systems ship, easily. So...let's say we're looking at a 3.5 TH/s Litecoin network by November. What does that mean? When the Bitcoin network hit 3.5 TH/s back in May of 2011, the difficulty was around 244,000. Litecoin's difficulty is currently around 28,000. You can probably see where this is going, already. Fun with mining calculators time. Say you have one 250MH/s miner and deployed it TODAY (impossible, but for the sake of argument). You're looking at pulling in 9 LTC/day with it. If you pay $.10/kwh you're very lucky not to live in California, but we'll say that's the case. You pay around $4.50/day in power. So you walk away with $42.50 worth of Litecoin, at $5/each. If you somehow managed to freeze the network at that difficulty and the coin at that price, you'd pay off your $9,200 purchase of hardware in roughly seven months or so...or if you bought a Titan at $10,000 you're looking closer to eight. But since difficulty marches on, forget that entire concept. Now...say you get your system after all three companies have shipped and their customers have deployed them, and we've seen the network rocked to the tune of two-and-a-quarter terahashes per second. Oh, it's a rosy picture... Now, with the network difficulty having blown up to 244,000 the miner with a 250MH/s system is mining 1.03 Litecoin per day. And if my estimates are correct...this is NOVEMBER, we're talking about. At the current price of $5/LTC and $.10/kwh you are pulling down a healthy $0.80/day in profits, after power. If you again had the power to freeze the hashrate and price, you'd be able to pay off that hardware purchase in, oh...roughly 35 years. To have a REASONABLE shot at getting a return on your investment (around 5-6 months), Litecoin will need to be $70 by November and climbing steadily, in concert with network hashrate. Bear in mind, again that there is nowhere else for that hashrate to go but Litecoin. Nothing else will profit the Scrypt miner. So what will happen? There is built-in hardware cost here that has to be recouped and the only real way of doing that is by mining...and there's only one game in town for Scrypt mining: Litecoin. It's going to be a really, really wild fourth quarter for this year. Either the miners mine and hoard, decreasing supply and demand increases radically, or miners take heavy losses on hardware, can't afford to run them and the Litecoin network contracts until they CAN make money with them. In the interests of self-preservation, I have a feeling miners will start hoarding. Soon.
bitcoin mining profitable in the US? Where are my calculations off?
Someone tell me where my calculations are wrong. Amazon has this miner advertised: Antminer S9 ~14.0TH/s @ .098W/GH 16nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner So that would consume 14000*0.98=1372 watts. Given my electricity costs (0.12 $/kwhr), I would make $8.19 for every $1 of electricity. In a month, I would make $884. That can't be right. Where did I screw up? Here is a python script to calculate that:
edit: thanks to Personthingman2. 25 vs 12.5 block reward. when I change that, my script outputs: rev=0.000194444444444 cost=4.74798641087e-05 ratio=4.09530330582 profit per month=380.93219223 This is a $4000 unit, so it pays for itself in 10 months. OK. So whether I will ever make money on this depends heavily on the growth of the network hashing rate over time, and the increase in BTC price. edit2: I am guessing that the answer to my question is that I would be lucky for the unit to keep working long enough to pay for itself. It would likely break down before reaching that point.
At what price will Bitcoin fail to function? My estimate: ~$100.
I'll begin with my conclusions: If the Bitcoin network consisted solely of 'Titanium ASIC' miners, the most powerful and energy efficient mining machine I know of, then the price point at which electricity costs begins to exceed rewards is $71/BTC (based on yesterday's network figures; more on that later). More realistically though, most miners aren't running highly efficient Titanium ASICs, hence I estimate ~$100/BTC as the turning point. I say 'fail to function' in my title, because who will continue to mine at a pure loss? It would be irrational - the rational action would be turn off the machine until the value of the rewards increases. Note: This is not the same as sunk costs in buying hardware - because in that case even if you never get back how much you paid, you're still making something. Perhaps, you might counter, Bitcoin enthusiasts will continue to mine at a loss. Well consider this: To sustain just 1% of the current network hash rate, you would require 559 Titanium ASICs costing over one million dollars in yearly electricity cost (at $0.10/kWh) - and that's a best case scenario. Let's assume that's the case - you have Bitcoin Enthusiasts contributing the equivalent of 559 Titanium ASICs hashing power for free out of their pocket. That's a 99% drop in hash rate. The time to a difficulty retarget is 2016 blocks, or at 10minutes/block that's 2 weeks. But if the hash rate were to drop by 99% within that two week period, then the block time would balloon out to 16.66 hours - making the block retarget ETA up to 3.8 years! If transactions took 16.66 hours just to get a single confirmation (if they had first priority), then how would use of Bitcoin remain practically feasible? Would people still have confidence in the system and the developers for allowing this to happen? How difficult or costly would it be to launch a 51% attack? Now, on to the calculations, and a few less optimistic alternate scenarios: Network hash rate at time of calculation: 335,365,290.09 GH/s 335,365,290.09 GH/s / 6000GH/s = 55894.215 'Titanium ASIC' miners 55894.215 x $5.28 daily electricity cost (At $0.10/kWh) = $295121.4552/day in electricity costs = $1776.87709485/block (avg. time of 8.67 minutes) $1776.87709485 / 25BTC block reward = $71.04/BTC = break even point. The above does not account for pool fees or transaction fee revenue or more importantly variance in kWh rates ($0.10/kWh is nonetheless pretty low worldwide), and hardware cost is irrelevant to this calculation. Without doing all the math again, here's some other popular mining machines for comparison: $113.07 (SP35 Yukon) $193.84 (CoinTerra TerraMiner IV) $385.89 (Antminer S1) I've also just seen the 'Antminer S4' mentioned in /Bitcoin, so just for comparison a Titanium ASIC is almost twice as energy efficient as an Antiminer S4 (2200W vs. 4200W for 6TH/s) - it's less efficient than the SP35 Yukon. If I've made any miscalculations here or have left anything important out, feel free to correct me.
Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times, While the price of bitcoin drops, miners get more creative... and some flourish. The bitcoin price is crashing; naysayers and doomsayers are having a field day. The demise of the dominant cryptocurrency is finally happening — or is it? Bitcoin has been buried hundreds of times, most notably during the brutal 90 percent decline from 2013 to 2015. And yet it has always made a comeback. Where the skeptics are correct: The second bitcoin bubble burst in December of last year and the price is down roughly 80 percent from its high of $20,000. Nobody knows whether and when it will see these lofty heights again. As a result, millions of speculators have been burned, and big institutions haven’t showed up to bridge the gap. This also happened on a smaller scale in 2013 after a similar 100x run-up, and it was necessary.
Time to Catch Up
What most speculators and even some serious proponents of the independent and decentralized monetary system don’t understand: Bitcoin needs these pauses to make improvements in its infrastructure. Exchanges, which could not handle the trading volumes at the height of the frenzy and did not return customer service inquiries, can take a breather and upgrade their systems and hire capable people. The technology itself needs to make progress and this needs time. Projects like the lightning network, a system which delivers instant bitcoin payments at very little cost and at virtually unlimited scale is now only available to expert programmers. A higher valuation is only justified if these improvements reach the mass market. And since we live in a world where everything financial is tightly regulated, for better or worse, this area also needs to catch up, since regulators are chronically behind the curve of technological progress. And of course, there is bitcoin mining. The vital infrastructure behind securing the bitcoin network and processing its transactions has been concentrated in too few hands and in too few places, most notably China, which still hosts about 70 percent of the mining capacity.
The Case For Mining
Critics have always complained that bitcoin mining consumes “too much” electricity, right now about as much as the Czech Republic. In energy terms this is around 65 terawatt hours or 230,000,000 gigajoules, costing $3.3 billion dollars according to estimates by Digiconomist. For the non-physicists among us, this is around as much as consumed by six million energy-guzzling U.S. households per year. All those estimates are imprecise because the aggregate cannot know how much energy each of the different bitcoin miners consumes and how much that electricity costs. But they are a reasonable rough estimate. So it’s worth exploring why mining is necessary to begin with and whether the electricity consumption is justified. Anything and everything humans do consumes resources. The question then is always: Is it worth it? And: Who decides? This question then leads to the next question: Is it worth having and using money? Most people would argue yes, because using money instead of barter in fact makes economic transactions faster and cheaper and thus saves resources, natural and human. _Merchants exchange goods with the inhabitants of Tidore, Indonesia, circa 1550. Barter was supplanted by using money because it is more efficient. (Archive/Getty Images)_If we are generously inclined, we will grant bitcoin the status of a type of money or at least currency as it meets the general requirements of being recognizable, divisible, portable, durable, is accepted in exchange for other goods and services, and in this case it is even limited in supply. So having any type of money has a price, whether it’s gold, dollar bills, or numbers on the screen of your online banking system. In the case of bitcoin, it’s the electricity and the capital for the computing equipment, as well as the human resources to run these operations. If we think having money in general is a good idea and some people value the decentralized and independent nature of bitcoin then it would be worth paying for verifying transactions on the bitcoin network as well as keeping the network secure and sound: Up until the point where the resources consumed would outweigh the efficiency benefits. Just like most people don’t think it’s a bad idea to use credit cards and banks, which consume electricity too. However, bitcoin is a newcomer and this is why it’s being scrutinized even more so than the old established players.
Different Money, Different Costs
How many people know how much electricity, human lives, and other resources gold mining consumes or has consumed in the course of history? What about the banking system? Branches, servers, air-conditioning, staff? What about printing dollar notes and driving them around in armored trucks? What about the social effects of monetary mismanagement of bank and government money like inflation as well as credit deflations? Gold gets a pass here. Most people haven’t asked that question, which is why it’s worth pointing out the only comprehensive study done on the topic in 2014. In “An Order of Magnitude” the engineer Hass McCook analyzes the different money systems and reaches mind-boggling conclusions. The study is a bit dated and of course the aggregations are also very rough estimates, but the ball park numbers are reasonable and the methodology sound. In fact, according to the study, bitcoin is the most economic of all the different forms of money. Gold mining in 2014 used 475 million GJ, compared to bitcoin’s 230 million in 2018. The banking system in 2014 used 2.3 billion gigajoules. Over 100 people per year die trying to mine gold. But mining costs more than electricity. It consumes around 300,000 liters of water per kilogram of gold mined as well as 150 kilogram (330 pounds) of cyanide and 1500 tons of waste and rubble. The international banking system has been used in all kinds of fraudulent activity throughout history: terrorist financing, money laundering, and every other criminal activity under the sun at a cost of trillions of dollars and at an order of magnitude higher than the same transactions done with cryptocurrency and bitcoin. And of course, while gold has a relatively stable value over time, our bank and government issued money lost about 90 percent of its purchasing power over the last century, because it can be created out of thin air. This leads to inflation and a waste of physical and human resources because it distorts the process of capital allocation. _The dollar has lost more than 90 percent of its value since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. (Source: St. Louis Fed)_This is on top of the hundreds of thousands of bank branches, millions of ATMs and employees which all consume electricity and other resources, 10 times as much electricity alone as the bitcoin network. According to monetary philosopher Saifedean Ammous, author of “The Bitcoin Standard,” the social benefit of hard money, i.e. money that can’t be printed by government decree, cannot even be fathomed; conversely, the true costs of easy money—created by government fiat and bank credit—are difficult to calculate. According to Ammous, bitcoin is the hardest money around, even harder than gold because its total supply is capped, whereas the gold supply keeps increasing at about 1-2 percent every year. “Look at the era of the classical gold standard, from 1871, the end of the Franco–Prussian War, until the beginning of World War I. There’s a reason why this is known as the Golden Era, the Gilded Age, and La Belle Epoque. It was a time of unrivaled human flourishing all over the world. Economic growth was everywhere. Technology was being spread all over the world. Peace and prosperity were increasing everywhere around the world. Technological innovations were advancing. “I think this is no coincidence. What the gold standard allowed people to do is to have a store of value that would maintain its value in the future. And that gave people a low time preference, that gave people the incentive to think of the long term, and that made people want to invest in things that would pay off over the long term … bitcoin is far closer to gold. It is a digital equivalent of gold,” he said in an interview with The Epoch Times. Of course, contrary to the gold standard that Ammous talks about, bitcoin doesn’t have a track record of being sound money in practice. In theory it meets all the criteria, but in the real world it hasn’t been adopted widely and has been so volatile as to be unusable as a reliable store of value or as the underlying currency of a productive lending market. The proponents argue that over time, these problems will be solved the same way gold spread itself throughout the monetary sphere replacing copper and seashells, but even Ammous concedes the process may take decades and the outcome is far from certain. Gold is the safe bet for sound money, bitcoin has potential. There is another measure where bitcoin loses out, according to a recent study by researchers from the Oak Ridge Institute in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is the amount of energy expended per dollar for different monetary instruments. One dollar worth of bitcoin costs 17 megajoules to mine versus five for gold and seven for platinum. But the study omits the use of cyanide, water, and other physical resources in mining physical metals. In general, the comparisons in dollar terms go against bitcoin because it is worth relatively less, only $73 billion in total at the time of writing. An issue that could be easily fixed at a higher price, but a higher price is only justified if the infrastructure improves, adoption increases, volatility declines, and the network proves its resilience to attacks over time. In the meantime, market participants still value the fact they can own a currency independent of the government, completely digital, easily fungible, and limited in supply, and relatively decentralized. And the market as a whole is willing to pay a premium for these factors reflected in the higher per dollar prices for mining bitcoin.
The Creativity of Bitcoin Mining
But where bitcoin mining lacks in scale, it makes up for it in creativity. In theory—and in practice—bitcoin mining can be done anywhere where there is cheap electricity. So bitcoin mining operations can be conducted not where people are (banking) or where government is (fiat cash) or where gold is (gold mining)—it can be done everywhere where there is cheap electricity Some miners are flocking to the heat of the Texan desert where gas is virtually available for free, thanks to another oil revolution. Other miners go to places where there is cheap wind, water, or other renewable energy. This is because they don’t have to build bank branches, printing presses, and government buildings, or need to put up excavators and conveyor belts to dig gold out of the ground. All they need is internet access and a home for the computers that look like a shipping container, each one of which has around 200 specialized bitcoin mining computers in them. “The good thing about bitcoin mining is that it doesn’t matter where on earth a transaction happens, we can verify it in our data center here. The miners are part of the decentralized philosophy of bitcoin, it’s completely independent of your location as well,” said Moritz Jäger, chief technology officer at bitcoin Mining company Northern Bitcoin AG.
But so far, this decentralization hasn’t worked out as well as it sounds in theory. Because Chinese local governments had access to subsidized electricity, it was profitable for officials to cut deals with bitcoin mining companies and supply them with cheap electricity in exchange for jobs and cutbacks. Sometimes the prices were as low as 2 dollar cents to 4 dollar cents per kilowatt hour. This is why the majority of bitcoin mining is still concentrated in China (around 70 percent) where it was the most profitable, but only because the Chinese central planners subsidized the price of electricity. This set up led to the by and large unwanted result that the biggest miner of bitcoin, a company called Bitmain, is also the biggest manufacturer of specialized computing equipment for bitcoin mining. The company reported revenues of $2.8 billion for the first half of 2018. Tourists walk on the dunes near a power plant in Xiangshawan Desert in Ordos of Inner Mongolia, in this file photo. bitcoin miners have enjoyed favorable electricity rates in places like Ordos for a long time. (Feng Li/Getty Images)Centralized mining is a problem because whenever there is one player or a conglomerate of players who control more than 50 percent of the network computing power, they could theoretically crash the network by spending the same bitcoin twice, the so called “double spending problem.“ They don’t have an incentive to do so because it would probably ruin the bitcoin price and their business, but it’s better not to have to rely on one group of people controlling an entire money system. After all, we have that exact same system with central banking and bitcoin was set up as a decentralized alternative. So far, no player or conglomerate ever reached that 51 percent threshold, at least not since bitcoin’s very early days, but many market participants always thought Bitmain’s corner of the market is a bit too close for comfort. This favorable environment for Chinese bitcoin mining has been changing with a crack down on local government electricity largess as well as a crackdown on cryptocurrency. Bitcoin itself and mining bitcoin remain legal in China but cryptocurrency exchanges have been banned since late 2017. But more needs to be done for bitcoin to become independent of the caprice of a centralized oppressive regime and local government bureaucrats.
Northern Bitcoin Case Study
Enter Northern Bitcoin AG. The company isn’t the only one which is exploring mining opportunities with renewable energies in locations other than China. But it is special because of the extraordinary set up it has for its operations, the fact that it is listed on the stock exchange in Germany, and the opportunities for scaling it discovered. The operations of Northern Bitcoin combine the beauties of bitcoin and capitalism in one. Like Texas has a lot of oil and free gas and it makes sense to use the gas rather than burn it, Norway has a lot of water, especially water moving down the mountains due to rainfall and melting snow. And it makes sense to use the power of the movement of the water, channel it through pipes into generators to create very cheap and almost unlimited electricity. Norway generates north of 95 percent of its total electricity from hydropower. A waterfall next to a hydropowerplant near Sandane, Norway, Oct. 25, 2018. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)Capitalism does not distinguish between renewable and fossil. It uses what is the most expedient. In this case, it is clearly water in Norway, and gas in Texas. As a side note on the beauties of real capital and the fact that capital and the environment need not be enemies, the water in one of the hydropowerplants close to the Northern Bitcoin facility is piped through a generator made in 1920 by J.M. Voith AG, a company from Heidenheim Germany. The company was established in 1867 and is still around today. The generator was produced in 1920 and is still producing electricity today.
In the remote regions of Northern Norway, there aren’t that many people or industry who would use the electricity. And rather than transport it over hundreds of miles to the industrial centers of Europe, the industries of the future are moving to Norway to the source of the cheap electricity. Of course, it is not just bitcoin mining, but other data and computing heavy operations like server farms for cloud computing that can be neatly packaged into one of those containers and shipped up north. “The containers are beautiful. They are produced in the middle of Germany where the hardware is enabled and tested. Then we put it on a truck and send it up here. When the truck arrives on the outside we lift it on the container vehicle. Two hours after the container arrives, it’s in the container rack. And 40 hours later we enable the cooling, network, power, other systems, and it’s online,” said Mats Andersson, a spokesman for the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway, where Northern Bitcoin has its operations. Plug and play. A Northern Bitcoin data container inside the Lefdal Mine data center, in Måløy, Norway. (Northern Bitcoin)If the cheap electricity wasn’t enough—around 5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to 17 cents in Germany—Norway also provides the perfect storage for these data containers, which are normally racked up in open air parks above the ground. Also here, the resource allocation is beautiful. Instead of occupying otherwise useful and beautiful parcels of land and nature, the Northern Bitcoin containers and others are stored in the old Lefdal olivine mine. Olivine is a mineral used for steel production and looks green. Very fitting. Hence also the name of the data center: Lefdal Mine. “We take the green mineral out and we take the green IT in,” said Andersson.
Using the old mine as storage for the data center makes the whole process even more resource efficient. Why? So far, we’ve only been talking about bitcoin mining using a lot of energy. But what for? Before you have actually seen the process in action—and it is similar for other computing operations—you cannot imagine how bizarre it is. Most of the electricity is used to prevent the computers from overheating. So it’s not even the processors themselves; it’s the fans which cool the computer that use the most juice. This is where the mine helps, because it’s rather cool 160 meters (525 feet) below sea level; certainly cooler than in the Texas desert. But it gets even better. On top of the air blow-cooling the computer, the Lefdal data center uses a fresh water system to pump through the containers in pipes. The fans can then circulate air over the cool pipes which transfer the heat to the water. One can feel the difference when touching the different pipes. The fresh water closed circle loop then completes the “green” or resource efficiency cycle by transferring its heat to ice cold water from the nearby Fjord. The water is sucked in through a pipe from the Fjord, the heat gets transferred without the water being mixed, and the water flows back to the Fjord, without any impact on the environment. To top it all off, the mine has natural physical security far better than open air data centers and is even protected from an electromagnetic pulse blast because it’s underground.
_The Nordfjord near Måløy, Norway. The Lefdal data center takes the cold water from the fjord and uses it to cool the computer inside the mine. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)_Company Dynamics
Given this superlative set up, Northern Bitcoin wants to ramp up production as fast as possible at the Lefdal mine and other similar places in Norway, which have more mountains where data centers can be housed. At the moment, Northern Bitcoin has 15 containers with 210 mining machines each. The 15 containers produce around 5 bitcoin per day at a total cost of around $2,500 dollars at the end of November 2018 and after the difficulty of solving the math problems went down by ~17 percent. Most of it is for electricity; the rest is for leasing the containers, renting the mine space, buying and writing off the mining computers, personnel, overhead, etc. Even at the current relatively depressed prices of around $4000, that’s a profit of $1500 per bitcoin or $7,500 per day. But the goal is to ramp it up to 280 containers until 2019, producing 100 bitcoin per day. Again, the company is in the sweet spot to do this. As opposed to the beginning of the year when one could not procure a mining computer from Bitmain even if one’s life depended on it, the current bear market has made them cheap and relatively available both new and second had from miners who had to cease operations because they can’t produce at low bitcoin prices. Northern Bitcoin containers inside the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway. (Northern Bitcoin)What about the data shipping containers? They are manufactured by a company called Rittal who is the world market leader. So it helps that the owner of Rittal also owns 30 percent of the Lefdal mine, providing preferential access to the containers. Northern Bitcoin said it has enough capital available for the intermediate goal of ramping up to 50 containers until the end of year but may tap the capital markets again for the next step. The company can also take advantage of the lower German corporate tax rate because revenue is only recorded when the bitcoin are sold in Germany, not when they are mined in Norway. Of course, every small-cap stock—especially bitcoin companies—have their peculiarities and very high risks. As an example, Northern Bitcoin’s financial statements, although public, aren’t audited. The equipment in the Lefdal mine in Norway is real and the operations are controlled by the Lefdal personnel, but one has to rely on exclusive information from the company for financials and cost figures, so buyer beware.
Northern Bitcoin wants to have 280 containers, representing around 5 percent of the network’s computing power. But the Lefdal mine alone has a capacity to power and cool 1,500 containers in a 200 megawatt facility, once it is fully built out. “Here you have all the space, power, and cooling that you need. … Here you can grow,” said Lefdal’s Andersson. A mine shaft in the Lefdal Mine data center in Måløy, Norway. The whole mine will have a capacity for 1500 containers once fully built out. (Valentin Schmid/The Epoch Times)The Norwegian government was behind an initiative to bring computing power to Norway and make it one of the prime destinations for data centers at the beginning of this decade. To that effect, the local governments own part of the utility companies which operate the power plants and own part of the Lefdal Mine and other locations. But even without notable subsidies (i.e. cash payments to companies), market players were able to figure it out, for everybody’s benefit. The utilities win because they can sell their cheap electricity close to home. The computing companies like IBM and Northern Bitcoin win because they can get cheap electricity, storage, and security. Data center operators like Lefdal win because they can charge rent for otherwise unused and unneeded space. However, in a recent about face, the central government in Oslo has decided to remove cryptocurrency miners from the list of companies which pay a preferential tax rate on electricity consumption. Normally, energy intensive companies, including data centers, pay a preferential tax on electricity consumed of 0.48 øre ($0.00056 ). According to a report by Norwegian media Aftenposten, this tax will rise to 16.58 øre ($0.019) in 2019 for cryptocurrency miners exclusively. The argument by left wing politician Lars Haltbrekken who sponsored the initiative: “Norway cannot continue to provide huge tax incentives for the most dirty form of cryptocurrency output […] [bitcoin] requires a lot of energy and generates large greenhouse gas emissions globally.” Since Norway generates its electricity using hydro, precisely the opposite is true: No greenhouse gas emissions, or any emissions for that matter would be produced, if all cryptomining was done in Norway. As opposed to China, where mining is done with coal and with emissions. But not only in Norway is the share of renewable and emission free energy high. According to research by Coinshares, Bitcoin’s consumes about 77.6 percent of its energy in the form of renewables globally. However self-defeating the arguments against bitcoin mining in Norway, the political initiative is moving forward. What it means for Northern Bitcoin is not clear, as they house their containers in Lefdal’s mixed data center, which also has other clients, like IBM. “It’s not really decided yet; there are still big efforts from IT sectors and parties who are trying to change it. If the decision is taken it might apply for pure crypto sites rather than mixed data centers, like ours,” said Lefdal’s Andersson. Even in the worst-case scenario, it would mean an increase from ~5 cents to ~6.9 cents per kilowatt hour, or 30 percent more paid on the electricity by Northern Bitcoin, which at ~$3250 would still rank it among the most competitive producers in the world. Coinshares estimates the average production price at $6,800 per Bitcoin at $0,05 per kilowatt hour of electricity and an 18-months depreciation schedule, but concedes that a profitable miner could “[depreciate] mining gear over 24-30 months, or [pay] less for mining gear than our estimates.” Jäger says Northern Bitcoin depreciates the equipment over three years and has obtained very favorable prices from Bitmain, making its production much more competitive than the average despite the same cost of electricity. In addition, the natural cooling in the mine also reduces electricity costs overall.
Cheap Producer Advantage
At the moment, however, the tax could be the least of any miners worry, as the bitcoin price is in free-fall. But what happens when the price crashes further? Suffice it to say that there was bitcoin mining when the dollar price was less than 1 cent and there will be bitcoin mining at lower prices thanks to the design of the network. Mao Shixing, the founder of mining pool F2pool estimated 600,000 miners have shut down since the November crash in price, according to a report by Coindesk. As it should be in a competitive system, the most energy intensive and obsolete machines are shut down first. As with every other commodity, when the price drops, some miners will leave the market, leaving space for cheaper competitors to capture a bigger share. But with bitcoin this is a bit simpler than with copper or gold for example. When a big copper player goes bankrupt, its competitors have to ramp up production and increase cost to increase their market share. With bitcoin, if 3,000 computers get taken off the total mining pool, they won’t be able to mine the approximately 5 bitcoin any longer. However, because the difficulty of solving the computationally intensive cryptographic tasks of bitcoin decreases automatically when there are fewer computers engaged in the task, the other players just have to leave their machines running at the same rate for the same cost and they will split the 5 bitcoin among them. “The moment the price goes down, our production price will go down as well,” said Jäger, a process that already happened from November to December when the difficulty decreased twice in November and the beginning of December. This naturally favors players like Northern Bitcoin, which are producing at the lower end of the cost spectrum. They will be the ones who shut down last. And this is a good thing. The more companies like Northern Bitcoin, and countries like Norway—even with the extra tax—the more decentralized the bitcoin system. The more computers there are in different hands mining bitcoin, the more secure the system becomes, because it will be ever more difficult for one player to reach the 50 percent threshold to crash the system.It is this decentralized philosophy which has kept the bitcoin system running for 10 years. Whether at $1 or $20,000.
NuVoo Mining guarantees 99.9% uptime. There are no energy fees or maintenance fees attached to the prices above. All contracts are open ended. Payouts are generated daily, although withdrawal limits are set at 0.0015 BTC. NuVoo Mining also has a profit calculator on their website to give you an idea of how much money you’ll make with each mining plan. NuVoo Mining is a cloud mining company based in Quebec, Canada. The company emphasizes cheap electrical rates and low cooling costs (not only is Quebec cold for much of the year, but it also has easy access to cheap, renewable electricity). Right now, NuVoo Mining only appears to offer cloud mining. However, the company has pages reserved for mining hardware, dedicated mining, and colocation mining, so it’s possible that they’re introducing more services in the future. To learn more about NuVoo Mining, visit online today at Nuvoo.io.
Bitcoin Mining Calculator – VBit Technologies Find out how much you can potentially earn through Bitcoin Mining. Join millions of people who already discovered the life changing opportunity to Bitcoin mining. Calculator. Current Bitcoin Price $ Hashrate: GH/s. Black Diamond. Disclaimer: Mining metrics are calculated based on current network hash rate and using a BTC - USD exchange rate based ... Find out the current Bitcoin value with easy-to-use converter: live CEX.IO Bitcoin price, EUR, USD Cryptoboom BTC Calculator allows you to find out latest BTC price with the easy-to-use tool. Convert any amount of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other cryptocurrencies to any world currency including USD, GBP, EUR, CNY, JPY, and more. The Bitcoin 401k and IRA Comparison Calculator bases it calculations on the spot price for the DOW, Gold and Bitcoin for the period selected, as provided by Blockchain.info, Coindesk, Yahoo! Finance or other third party sources. The Bitcoin 401k and IRA Comparison Calculator also does not factor transaction fees associated with purchasing Bitcoin. BitcoinIRA.com does not guarantee that any ... The Bitcoin price is rising at a slightly lesser 0.3403% per day over the past year. We suggest you enter a custom Bitcoin price into our calculator based on what you expect the average price to be over the next year. The price has gone down for most of the past year, which is a factor that should be strongly considered in your calculations. What our Calculator Assumes. Since our calculator ...
Free Bitcoin only WiFi l'inventeur du bitcoin bitcoin mining, bitcoin mining calculator, bitcoin market, bitcoin mining software, bitcoin mining pool, bitcoi... BITCOIN PRICE , BITCOIN FUTURE in doubt http://youtu.be/eO-yrpQpIT8 What is NAMECOIN BITCOIN'S First Fork http://youtu.be/oBkhPhu3_B4 Test Scanning Stainless... In this video I will show you how to figure out the price of your altcoin. Crypto math can be difficult at times but once you get the hang of it it's not so bad. ALTcoin calculator (To Edit ... New video every Tuesday! Today we are taking a look at the Gekkoscience NewPac USB miner. We'll check all the hardware you need for setting it up, discuss so... I just googled and found an amazing tool for BTC to Alts, BTC to Fiat, Fiat to BTC, and Fiat to Fiat Converter. Website Link: https://coinkalk.com It also offers profit calculation tool. We just ...