https://obelisk.tech Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working. The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018. Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule. The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less. The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later. We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much. We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference. The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month). The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk. Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers. Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
A 16nm or 14nm ASIC for Sia
A mining card costing under $1000 that you can put into a GPU slot
ASICs for other PoW cryptocurrencies
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies. We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
Since I penned the original Community Fork proposal, I felt the need to address the decision to fork and the medium post attempting to justify the radical departure from what the community sought. The italics are quotes from the post, the following text is mine. The first several statements are in regard to what happened in January. The core developers ultimately decided against forking. -- This statement sets the table by clearly laying out what happened in January with a statement the project is centralized as Nebulous went against the community in not forking then. The same holds true on today's statement. Decentralization is valuable because there is nobody in control, and we weren’t comfortable releasing an update that threatened to rip the community in half. -- In other words, we asserted control and made a highly centralized decision to protect the community. It is Orwellian in attempting to explain that war is peace. ironically the people leaving in the largest droves were those who most aggressively opposed the fork during the earlier debates -- Even if evidence existed to determine this, it's doubtful. The people most active against the fork were A3 purchasers and those people had ROI to meet. Even if they decided the Discord was a bit toxic, they still fulfilled a role securing the network. The author frequently makes assertions that cannot be defended with fact. Sia’s biggest supporters and believers were the ones that got hit hardest by the mining catastrophe, and despite this loss, they were also the ones who stuck through the hardest times. -- What did they lose? Obelisks wouldn't ship for another 9 months. How was it a catastrophe? Was the network ever at risk? The use of hyperbole here is indicative of the lack of a serious argument. They (innosilicon) have the only 14nm miner on the market, and as such they have the only rig capable of competing. Without competition, there is no price pressure, and it seems that there is close to, if not above, a 100% markup on their hardware. For every machine that gets sold, Innosilicon makes enough profit to produce a machine for themselves to mine. -- The suggestion is that a highly competent manufacturer fairly competing to create the best possible solution is somehow in the wrong. It then goes on to suggest that gaining a financial reward for being highly competent is somehow wrong and further intimates the profits must be reinvested into working the Sia chain. In fact, Innosilicon didn't have an overly large hashrate until the discussion of a fork seemed inevitable. It seems reasonable they dumped the totality of their inventory online because they would not be able to sell them once a fork occurred. Arguing against capitalism and the freedom to earn profits is a dangerous slope, perhaps revealing underlying political motivations of the author. For an ASIC that is going to obsolete existing hardware, margins can be anywhere from 50% to 100%. The story is different however for ASICs that intend to compete without being strong enough to become the new monopoly. For these machines, margins are likely to be less than 25% because the presence of competition heavily forces prices downwards. -- The argument here is to somehow seek to fight Moore's Law. Just as GPUs defeated CPUs and ASICs defeated GPUs, the strongest ASICs will prevail. There are several manufacturers that can be sought out to compete if the result is a single dominant model. More importantly, Innosilicon sells the majority of it's mining rigs to decentralize the hashrate. A single dominant manufacturer does not guarantee or even make more likely the hashrate will centralize. Finally, seeking to protect less than competent or financially competitive manufacturers runs counter to much of the Satoshi manifesto. When a manufacturer is also a miner, there is an incentive against manufacturing and selling more machines. -- The Bitmain financials clearly show the company makes the overwhelming amount of their profitability on miner sales, not mining. This is likely true for nearly all coins as mining quickly becomes close to breakeven. Even the author later admits the margins on hardware make for a lucrative business model. High manufacturer diversity is currently limited by the extreme barriers to entry...we like to see manufacturers that share the knowledge and encourage a vibrant competitive environment. -- In no industry that I am aware of is sharing of proprietary knowledge common and especially not in highly competitive and extremely capital intensive industries. It's beyond naive to believe this should be a goal. The post continues with other hurdles that no rational enterprise would accept without some sort of regulatory framework. It cannot be fairly policed as we are seeing here. The author has made several statements based on conjecture and formulated a punishment with the entities having no rights of appeal or even an advance guideline to follow that would have avoided the issues. For the Sia network, an important line was crossed when secret ASIC projects superseded a public project that had substantial community investment. -- This may be accurate to the author but such a line was never laid out for the public and as such, crossing it cannot be penalized unjustly. Sia did not fork initially because there was a lot of confusion, a lot of emotion, and a great fear that the heavy conflicts of interest would cause the development team to make the wrong decision. Since then, there has been time for emotions to cool, for level heads to prevail, and for a second community fork proposal to come forward. Unlike the first fork proposal by the community, this second proposal experienced widespread support and virtually no opposition at all from regular members of the community. -- This is accurate in stating the Community Fork proposal enjoyed widespread support. it is totally off base in suggesting the Dev Fork even resembles the CF. This is using the community as a human shield due to the overwhelming lack of an argument. My guess is that the Dev Fork would not meet with anything near the kind of support the CF enjoyed. Sia is forking today to reprimand the current ASIC monopoly for the damage it did to the Sia community, to make whole the supporters of Sia’s community ASIC project, and to send a clear message to all future Sia ASIC manufacturers: we will not tolerate an abusive ASIC monopoly. -- Which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying there is one final boss at Sia and you made him mad to the point that he must now "reprimand" you. The items characterized as abusive were never outlined in advance and are highly debatable as to whether they actually are abusive, but again, Final Boss. We fully expect that the 28nm Obelisk ASICs will be replaced by a 16nm chip from another manufacturer, who will become the new manufacturing monopoly for Sia... the Sia community is not afraid to take action a second time to break a parasitic or abusive ASIC monopoly. -- Hopefully any manufacturer understands the shifting sands that exist within the Sia leadership could decide virtually any action to be harmful as there has been zero harm done up to now. There have been no attacks, no overt centralization and plenty of supporters own/mine with these company's devices. Sia is an ungoverned blockchain. There is no built-in mechanism on the Sia network to change the consensus rules, and there is no mechanism in the software that the developers can use to force people to upgrade. The only way that Nebulous can encourage a fork is to release new code, and then encourage people to upgrade. This leaves people with the opportunity to reject the upgrade, and to instead continue using the old software and the old blockchain. If enough people rally around the old software, there could be a network split, and Sia could divide into two blockchains, in the same way that Ethereum split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and in the same way that Bitcoin became Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. At Nebulous, we view these cryptocurrency splits as one of the most powerful innovations of the blockchain space. Under traditional governance structures, a single decision gets made and everyone has to live with that decision. But when the network is able to split, you can get solutions where two groups of people with incompatible demands can both get what they want. We will be structuring the Sia hardfork code to enable a group of dissenters to easily split off and be on a separate blockchain where the hardfork was never implemented. The hardfork will be released as its own release, v1.3.6, where the only code updated is a handful of lines of code + tests required to implement the hardfork. The code will be implemented in a way that easily allows a dissenting group to remove the hardfork code and yet continue merging changes that are made to the primary Sia repo. So long as the siafund ownership is maintained on this fork, members of the dissenting community will be welcome in the Sia community, on the Sia discord, on the subreddit, and will be able to receive support and help directly from the Nebulous support staff. Perhaps the most amazing thing about a potential Sia network split is that all users will be able to continue to use their current files that they have on Sia. Uploads and downloads will continue to work, no matter what side of the split you are on, and so long as the minority side of the split has enough hosts (50–80 is what most users will require), the repair mechanisms of the Sia network will be able to repair your files from across both networks and ensure that your files continue working into the future. If the minority side of the fork does not have enough hosts, users will have time (most users will have several weeks) after the split to download their files and find an alternative way to back them up. -- These paragraphs are simply amazing. The author appears to be goading people resistant to his iron control over the project to continue the legacy chain. While this makes sense if you are simply building a protocol and have no interest in marketing and selling the tech to say, Fortune 1000 companies, it is a terrible message if you do plan to. You are seeking community schism, making a competitive environment for hosting when hosting is already horribly unprofitable and seeking to sow chaos in how the network evolves into the future. The logical approach would be to let dedicated foes seek out the info on their own if there is a desire to work the legacy chain, not encourage it. It continues to show the author, while a strong technologist is a weak business individual. we like to see is low margins for miners and manufacturers. When there are high margins, at least one player (the benefactor of the high margins) is able to acquire hashrate more cheaply than everyone else, and therefore is able to more easily attack the network. -- What is the evidence and argument here? That people with more money are more able to attack? People with large trust funds are equally likely to be more able to attack. High profit margins simply indicate a competent agency, nothing more. ASIC manufacturers ultimately exist to serve the network, and specifically to protect the network against 51% attacks. -- ASIC manufacturers exist to serve their customers, full stop. They have no role or responsibility to the network at all. Increasing a circle of responsibility to an entity with no control over how their products are used is silly. Overall, I am disappointed the team chose to ignore the Community Fork proposal in order to run their own fork. But, this is a Nebulous project and ultimately they can do whatever they want. They cannot assert decentralization though and very little about this current action suggests there is a long term goal of decentralization. Decisions to exclude some faction today will most certainly arise down the road as the team concludes that certain storage customers or developers or vendors are unacceptable for various reasons. This hasn't even discussed the awkward part of the equation where Obelisk is owned by the author and stands to gain now and in the future when more powerful, 2nd gen ASICs can be created and no outside manufacturers wanting to risk losing on the Sia project. The point of the post is to attempt to continue to get Mr. Vorick to recognize the issues with his sole governance of the Sia project. Even the most ill-willed posts from various authors have a goal of improving the project. It is hoped that at some point, Vorick will recognize his project is stronger with community participation, even to the point of going along with community desires sometimes even if it runs counter to his own desires. There is value in learning to negotiate. You learn what to give away and what is sacrosanct. In the end, the project will grow much stronger and there will be copious numbers of supporters ready to do battle against the hyper-competitive world of cloud storage.
Currently, I'm only hashing about 15kh/s, which is pretty weak compared to what I've seen on the dogecoin subs. I'm using the onboard AMD Radeon A8 GPU which has dual graphics technology. For gaming, it's a pretty solid GPU so I was shocked to see my hash speed so low. I've been looking into the Fury, but based on what I've read, the cost of the Fury + electricity bills, mining isn't worth it. I've come to a fork in the road and I'm looking for some advice from experienced doge users/miners. Do I drop money on a Fury, a graphics card, or is there another way?
TL:DR: Don't bother mining if you want to get rich yo. You're way too late to the party. Welcome to the exciting and often stressful world of bitcoin! You are wondering what looks like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich quick. Of course you guys probably heard about this "mining" process but what is this? Simply put, a bitcoin mining machine that performs complicated calculations and when deemed correct by the network, receives a block which contains 25 bitcoins (XBT). This is how bitcoins are generated. So your brain instantly thinks, "Holy shit, how can I get on this gold rush?" Before you proceed further, I would like to explain the concept of mining further. Bitcoin is limited 21m in circulation. It is coded to release a certain number of blocks at a certain time frame, ie: this year the network will release close to 500,000 bitcoins. What this means is that the more people (or specifically the amount of mining power) mine, the less each person gets. The network tries to keep to this time frame through the process of difficulty adjustments which makes the calculations harder and this happens every 2 weeks. So every 2 weeks, you get less bitcoins with the same hash rate (mining power) based on what the difficulty changes are. Recently, the changes have been pretty staggering, jumping 226% in 2 months. You can see the difficulty changes here. Now, why are these changes so large? A bit of a simple history. Bitcoin's algorithm runs on SHA-256. This algorithm can be solved using many hardware, from CPU to GPU and dedicated hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). When bitcoin first started, mining on CPU was a trivial process, you can pretty much earn 50 XBT (the block size then) every few hours between Q1 and Q2 of 2010. In late 2010, due to the difficulty increase that is reducing the effectiveness of CPU mining, people started to harness GPU mining. Only AMD GPU's architecture design are better optimized for bitcoin mining so this is what the community used. Immediate improvements of more than 10x was not uncommon. In time of course, GPUs reached their limit and people started to build dedicated. In the same vein as the CPU to GPU transition, similar performance increase was common. These ASICs can only perform SHA-256 calculation so they can be highly optimized. Their performance mainly depends on the die size of the chips exactly like CPU chips. In general, think of bitcoin mining's technological advancement no different to mining gold. Gold panning (CPUs) vs pickaxes (GPUs) vs machinery (ASICs) and we are still in the ASIC mining race. ASIC mining started with ASICMiner and Avalon being first to the market, both producing 130nm and 110nm chips. The technology are antiquated in comparison to CPUs and GPUs which are now 22nm with 14nm slated for Q1 next year by Intel but they are cheap to manufacture and with performance gains similar to the CPU to GPU transition, they were highly successful and popular for early adopters. At that point in time since there were less competing manufacturers and the low batch runs of their products, miners became really rich due to the slow increase in difficulty. The good days came to an end mid August with an unprecedented 35% increase in difficulty. This is due to existing manufacturers selling more hardware and many other players coming onto the market with better hardware (smaller die). Since die shrinking knowledge and manufacturing process are well known along with a large technological gap (110nm vs 22nm), you get an arms race. Current ASIC makers are closing in on our technological limit and until everyone catches up, the difficulty jumps will be high because it is just too easy to get a performance increase. Most newer products run at 28nm and most chips are not well optimized, so it will be around another 6 to 9 months before we see hit a hard plateau with 22nm or 14nm chips. The estimated time frame is because manufacturing chips at 22nm or 14nm is a more difficult and expensive task. In the meantime most manufacturers will probably settle at 28nm and we will reach a soft plateau in about 3 months. Now, you might ask these questions and should have them answered and if you have not thought about them at all, then you probably should not touch bitcoin until you understand cause you are highly unprepared and probably lose lots of money.
I read that you can mine with a CPU/GPU, should I do so?
No. If you have to ask, please do not touch bitcoin yet. You will spend more on electricity cost than mining any substantial bitcoin. Seriously. At all. A 7990 would produce a pitiful 0.02879 XBT (USD $14 @ $500/XBT exchange rate) for the next 30 days starting 23 Nov 2013 at 35% difficulty increase. And if you think you can mine on your laptop either on a CPU or GPU, you are probably going to melt it before you even get 0.01 XBT.
I get free electricity and I have existing hardware, should I still mine?
Probably not because you probably forgot that GPUs and CPUs produce a ton of heat and noise. You can try but I see no point earning < $20 bucks per month.
Should I buy an ASIC machine?
No, because your machine will probably not mine as much as buying bitcoins. This situation is called the opportunity cost. While you can still make money if XBT rise in value, it is a fallacy.
IE: if you start mining on 1 Dec 2013, a KnC Jupiter running at 450Gh/sec (KnC lies as not all chips run at 550Gh/sec) will yield you a total revenue of 9.5189 XBT with a profit of 0.7859 XBT in profit by 30th Jan 2014 at a constant difficulty increase of 35%. The opportunity cost is: 8.5910 XBT @ USD $580/XBT with USD $5,000 which is the cost of a KnC Jupiter. This is the best you can earn and it's a bloody optimistic assumption because:
You are assuming your pre-order will arrive on time. (I do not think any first batch pre-order from any manufacturer has arrived on time).
All pre-orders are sold out for 1 Dec.
You are assuming your chips will run at 450Gh/sec minimum but many miners here will tell you their chips have been under performing.
Electricity cost have not been taken into account.
Shipping cost and time has not been taking into account.
Import Tax or VAT has not been taken into account.
Risk of downtime due to DOA or warranties has not been taken into account.
You are assuming the difficulty increase will be a constant 35% which is very unlikely because Cointerra with a team that has worked on some of the world’s highest performance CPUs, GPUs and chipsets for NVIDIA, Intel, Samsung, Qualcomm and Nortel has pre-sold an absurd amount of hash rate. Difficulty increase of 45% or more (which we have seen when a small player, KnC shipped their 1st batch) will be repeated commonly. This is only 1 company, imagine what the rest will come out with. I have failed repeatedly and so have many in estimating future hashrate. You wont be able to do better.
Even if you earn some profit, it will be < 15% and will probably be not worth your risk or your trouble. I can buy and hold XBT with no risk of losing them.
The only circumstances where you will earn money is when XBT exchange rates is so high that it makes the opportunity cost pales in comparison. Unfortunately this is not the case. If XBT stabilized at 900/XBT today (20 Nov 2013) then we might have a good case. The risk is just generally not worth it. Unless you have at least a hundred thousand and can make a contract with a manufacturer for a lower cost, do not bother. Just wait until the arms race is over then you can start mining.
I understand I probably won't earn any money, I just want to do this for fun/hobby...
Okay, go buy an AsicMiner USB Block Erupter. They are cheap and pretty fun to have.
I want something with more omph and still do not mind losing money
Sure, just read the answer below on who NOT to go for. You are doing bitcoin a service by securing the network and you have our (the users') gratitude.
Who are the manufacturers?
You can check out the manufacturers and their products below along with a calculator here. If you still insist on buying, do not to go for BFL. Their track record is horrid and borderline scammish. KnC fucked up a lot with defective boards and chips. Personally, I think CoinTerra is the best choice. Alternatively, you can go on the secondary market to buy a delivered product. You can get a better deal there if you know how to do your "return on investment (ROI)" calculation. Personally, I will go for a 45%-50% difficulty increase for the next 3 months for my calculations and a 2% pool fee. However, most products on ebay are sold at a cost much higher than it should. bitcointalk.org is a cheaper place because everyone knows what are the true value is so you will find less options. If you are unclear or need assistance, please post a question.
Which pool should I use?
I actually do not use any of the pools recommended to the left because I think they lack features. My favourite is Bitminter (Variable fees based on features used; max 2%). It has all advanced features for a pool, very responsive and helpful owner on IRC. Variable fees is good for those who do not need a large feature set, even with all features turned on, it is still cheap. Eligius (0% fees) has high value for money but lacks features. It has anonymous mining which might be attractive to certain subset of people but not for others. Many other community member and I disagree highly with the opinions of the owner on the direction of bitcoin. I do use his pool for now but I do so only because I share my miners with a few partners and anonymous mining allows us to monitor the machines without using an account. Bitminter uses only OpenID which is problematic for me. BTC Guild (3% fees) is another big pool and is fully featured and does charge a premium for their fees. That said, they are the most stable of the lot. I do use them but do so only because my hoster uses them for monitoring. I try not to use them because a pool with a very large hash rate (they are the largest) presents a large vulnerability to bitcoin's network if compromised. All of them pay out transaction fees.
An Insiders Take on CoinTerra & the Bitcoin Mining Sector
Having been involved in Bitcoin since 2011 and on the inside of one of the 28nm Bitcoin mining contestants for the past two months, here is my story. Feel free to skip the long intro to skip to the present: I added it because people might want to know where I'm coming from. My elevator pitch is that I discovered Bitcoin in 2011 while traveling in Argentina, and after doing research I started recommending it as an investment to the subscribers of my financial newsletter in early 2012. BTC was $5 back then, so we did well with that. Here are some links of the things that I've done in Bitcoin:
Since the beginning I've been thinking a lot about how I wanted to invest in Bitcoin. It has always made plain sense to me to begin with buying coins, as it is like an ETF on the entire Bitcoin economy. However, in early 2012, just the idea of buying bitcoins was a pretty scary prospect. I consulted with two core developers who actually tried to dissuade me from looking at Bitcoin as an investment. One said it was still very much an experiment, the other said (correctly so) that there were still substantial security risks. Eventually it was my experience in Argentina's difficult economy (rife with currency crackdowns and capital controls) that convinced me to take the leap - I decided that there was enough demand and enthusiasm for financial freedom in the world. Enough for some crazy people to keep funneling resources into Bitcoin, resources that would support the idealist hackers and maverick entrepreneurs to make the technology of cryptocurrency a success. So I started buying bitcoins, considering myself lucky because my friends in Latin America had it much tougher: they had to mine most of their cryptocurrency in their basement with graphic cards because of the harsh capital controls that prevented them from sending money abroad and buying them on an exchange. In all, 2012 was a difficult year for Bitcoin. The 'old' bitcoiners were still psychologically numbed from the huge decline in price, and the newbees were continually scared by new scandals: the Bitcoinica thefts in May and July, the BTC Savings and Trust-ponzi implosion in August, and the Bitfloor theft in September. The price of Bitcoin hovered between $5 and $13 all year, the mainstream media ignored or at best scorned Bitcoin, and I for one was mostly happy to still have an unscathed wallet. Throughout the year I wrote about Bitcoin practically every week in my email updates and every month in my printed investment newsletter. It was often a frustrating job, because my many of my subscribers are babyboomers or from an older generation who don't intuitively grasp the concepts of peer-to-peer, open source, online, etc. I received a good number of emails accusing me of promoting a ponzi scheme, and my publisher (who does all the promotion for the newsletter) was very sceptical and tried to persuade me to write less about Bitcoin and more about traditional investments like gold and stocks. I think this tension/struggle is part of what prevented me from exploring the investable side of the Bitcoin economy for quite a while, although I did buy a few Bitcoin mining stocks on the GLBSE. (Compliments to the miners that kept paying out dividends even after the wild ending of this stock exchange - COGNITIVE is one of them) Attending the Bitcoin London conference organized by Amir Taaki in late 2012 was definitely a turning point for me. Cryptocurrency suddenly became tangible and real, and I think that was the case for many people there. During Amir's conference, I made friends with Jim from MultiBit and Nejc from BitStamp. I likely missed an investment opportunity with BitPay (even though Tony Galippi was just as impressive back then as he is now), and I tried to persuade GLBSE's Nefario to start talking to a lawyer about the legal risks of running a Bitcoin denominated exchange. Josh from Butterfly Labs made an announcement there in London, and that was my first experience with the excitement and controversy that characterizes so much of the Bitcoin mining industry today. Meanwhile my investment newsletter kept doing well, and I decided to make a move to South America to expand my horizon. That's how it happened that I was with my friends in Buenos Aires when the March-April 2013 explosion in price happened: an exhilarating time, and I'm still grateful for their long term Bitcoin experience which helped me make the right decisions for myself during this period. Still I kept thinking about how I could invest some of my gains back in the Bitcoin economy. Chasing a dollar profit doesn't make sense to me, so I had to identify business models that gave perspective for making a multiple on my bitcoins. Bitcoin mining felt like an interesting fit, for several reasons. First, I spent the past few years studying the gold mining industry and the parallels and differences with Bitcoin mining are absolutely fascinating to me. Next, in the short run I am not at ease regarding the authorities ability to attack or destabilize the BTC network. Many will object by saying that the Bitcoin network has a hashrate that's currently 40 times faster than top 500 supercomputers combined. However, that is misleading because the equation would change dramatically if those computers were equipped with specialized ASICs that can be produced for a couple of million dollars. This is what Jim Rickards referred to when he said "technologists don't understand the world of power politics and malicious actors: there are people who don't care about the cost. (…) If they want to destroy a system, and they have to pay to do it, they'll do it. It's not necessarily more expensive than buying an aircraft carrier or building a submarine." This is the reason why I think it's crucial to push up the network speed as close to the physical limits as possible. Once the miners are working on the smallest node and with the most efficient chip possible, it will be much more difficult for a malicious entity to do a 51% attack on the network. (By the way, much respect to the small bitcoiners and basement miners for this: they are the ones that have been bankrolling the expensive development of ever more sophisticated ASIC chips. They are the ones that are slowly turning the once brittle skeleton of the Bitcoin network into an indestructible Adamantium shield.) Finally, it seemed obvious to me that the Bitcoin mining market was about to enter a consolidation phase, in which the market would increasingly sponsor the more reliable and technically gifted chip producers, which will eventually create a more stable environment for everyone. How exciting, to try and witness from the first row how an entirely new industry grows from childhood/adolescence towards maturity! Enter CoinTerra. I first met Ravi Iyengar and his team members at the San Jose Bitcoin conference, where they pitched for an angel investment in their company. I was immediately impressed by their passion, technical pedigree, and understanding of the workings of Bitcoin. I was definitely intrigued and after the conference we kept the communication lines open. Back in Belgium I met with two interested angels who happened to be Belgian, too. I then talked to different people with hardware backgrounds to verify whether Ravi's team really was that good judging by the industry standards. They were. I started getting excited. From there on, things began moving fast. The two Belgians got in and the more I talked to Ravi, the more I was impressed with his cogent reasoning, his decisiveness, and the speed by which he absorbs large amounts of new information. By mid July I finally made the decision to also come in as the third angel investor in CoinTerra. When I talked about the company to Timo Hanke (German cryptographer and author of the Bitcoin Pay-to-Contract protocol) he was intrigued, did his own due dilligence, and soon after became an investor in, and later a team member of CoinTerra. Other investors and advisors that came in on the angel round had reputable backgrounds in the software and hardware industries, precious metals, telecom, and law - all of whom shared a great and genuine passion for Bitcoin. I began feeling very fortunate to be able to follow this project from such a close perspective. After some days, because of Ravi's high energy and magnetic enthusiasm, the following turned into involvement. When I was invited to come to Austin, Texas to help out, I jumped in with both feet - I've been here for a week now. One thing I noticed when getting involved with CoinTerra more closely, is that the communications part of the equation needed improving. I can understand how the issue came to be. Ravi is in the first place an engineer and a team leader, and he started structuring his company from that same perspective. Even today most of his focus is directed to closely managing all the engineers (in Austin, in Raleigh, and also in India) to make sure that the risks involved are managed to the greatest possible extent. The engineering roots of CoinTerra are also reflected in the initial vision behind the company: to build large and efficient mining data centers, deploy them worldwide, and to then offer cloud hashing services to the public. However, the still uncertain legal repercussions of that lead to a change in strategy. Instead, CoinTerra is now working on providing chips and rigs for the general public, and leaves it for the customers to decide where and how to mine with them. Now, I understand and appreciate how very skeptical a large part of the Bitcoin mining community has become. People have invested a lot of resources in brave but often very inexperienced teams who have not always been able to deliver on their promises. It has been a road of trial and error, and the errors of some have proven painful to many. I can say that I understand what it means to have skin in the game of the mining market; I am an investor in a company that has announced but not released a manufactured product on the market yet. And I stand by it: I think CoinTerra is working on fantastic products and has great future potential as a company. Would I like to make a return on my investment? Of course, that will be the best proof that it fulfills the potential that I see in Ravi and his team. That said, even to just be involved in this technological arms race that is taking place in Bitcoin mining, where hyper competitive capitalism is miraculously creating a very pure public good, is a real privilege. I think the sector will further mature and that we will see more and more reliable companies emerge over time, and all the while the Bitcoin network will grow stronger and stronger. I'm happy to take questions if you are interested. Best wishes, Tuur
Everyone, A lot has happened in the last few weeks, so we thought it was time for a new update. The main focus of this newsletter will be around the following topics: Jupiter’s performance increase. A new product called Saturn. More information on our approach to Litecoin mining devices. Things we are working on in the next few weeks. Update of Jupiter performance https://www.kncminer.com/products/jupiter We have previously announced that Jupiter will have a minimum performance of 250GH/s. We can now be a little more accurate and say that it will be above 350GH/s. A few improvements have allowed this to happen. One of them is that we are now able to use the 28nm technology in our standard ASIC design. Delivery is also important to our customers so we can also narrow down from saying autumn to the latter part of September 2013. This is still a compressed timeline but we are very confident we can meet our deadline. (Which in terms of Standard cell ASIC design is a very aggressive time frame.) We are able to commit to this deadline because of the experience that ORSoC brings. The last update around Jupiter is the price. We previously stated that it would be between 7000 and 8000 USD per device. The final component costs are all in and we can confirm that the price will be 6995 USD. So to recap. Jupiter now comes with: 350 GH/s. 28nm Standard Cell ASIC chips. Shipment in September 2013. 6995 USD price tag. Announcement of Saturn https://www.kncminer.com/products/saturn We have had many people asking for a cheaper ASIC device, which would still give great value for money in terms of hashes per dollar. So we have listened. We have created Saturn, Saturn is a 4 blade device. (Jupiter is an 8 blade device) Saturn still offers great value in terms of hash per dollar, but has a much more favorable purchase price of 3795 USD. It will have a minimum performance of 175 GH/s and because it’s based on the same modular design as Jupiter, they will ship alongside each other in September 2013. So to recap on Saturn: 175 GH/s. 28nm Standard Cell ASIC chips. Shipment in September 2013. 3795 USD price tag. Litecoin device A common request arriving on our desks is around us producing a Litecoin mining device. We have stated that we are looking into it, to see if we can develop a device that would make sense for the Litecoin community. What we would like to say at this stage is that we are removing things form our plate which in any way delay the shipment of our ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, having said that if we have any space in our resources. (Which we may increase in the near future) They are being targeted at producing a Litecoin device. So as of today it’s on the plan but is second only to the ASIC Bitcoin devices. We will continue to conduct research into Litecoin devices and see exactly how challenging it would be to produce an FPGA type setup for mining Litecoins. The coming weeks Next week we will have a demo video of our Mars device uploaded for everyone to see. So at this point we would like to invite the community to select people to come to our offices. Those people would be able to meet the engineering team and have a look at our prototype. If you would like an invite please send us an email. We will try to accommodate as many people as we can. Above all we would like to say thanks again for all of your feedback. Keep it coming it allows us to produce better and more targeted products. KnCMiner Team
I have been closely watching the mining scene for only about 3 months, so excuse me if this sort of question is asked frequently, or is too speculative. Is all BTC mining now underwater, with a negative ROI? That's what it looks like to me. I initially got interested years ago, when the return was small and BTC was not worth much. I didn't mine because it seemed like a miniscule return on investment. Oh I wish I had started back then, those "worthless" BTCs would be worth a lot now. But I started getting more interested again when that Ars Technica article on the BFL Jalapeno appeared. Holy crap, a machine that prints free money. He made hundreds of bucks in a week. So I started checking it out. With the delays in BFL's product shipping, all the mining calculators show that any new investment in mining hardware will never break even. Difficulty is increasing so fast, that the only machines making money are already in place, and soon they won't even pay for the cost of electricity. Now just to screw this up even further, BFL did a classic "Osborne Effect" announcement of their new Monarch board. Their existing ASIC machines are obsolete. The new 28nm machine that does not exist yet, is promised to deliver 600Gh for 350 watts, and costs $4680. I ran the numbers through the mining calculator at The Genesis Block. Unfortunately their calculator seems to be down at the moment, but I recall running numbers on a Monarch, delivered even in December, would not break even unless BTC went up to 2000 per dollar! Now even accounting for BFL's broken promises, if I could buy mining hardware like this today and turn it on now, it would make a negative ROI. I run the numbers for every possible hardware I could buy, none of them are as cheap in dollars/Gh or Gh/watt as the Monarch. And none of them break even. I decided to track the existing performance of mining using my dinky Mac mini's GPU. It won't mine much, and GPU mining will never break even in a network full of ASICs. But it would give a rough index of how difficulty is affecting mining. Here's a rough description of my results. At this point, it looks like mining is doubling in difficulty every month. Nobody can make money unless either BTC rises in value dramatically, or the majority of miners give up and unplug their unprofitable mining hardware. So someone tell me if this assessment is realistic or not. At the moment, it looks like any new investment in mining hardware will result in turning every dollar of investment into 50 cents worth of BTC at most. With increasing difficulty, soon even existing mining hardware will be turning every dollar of electricity into less than a dollar worth of BTC. ROI is underwater now for new hardware, and soon will be underwater for all hardware, even advanced ASICs that haven't even shipped yet. There are only two ways that mining might ever make a profit. One is if almost everyone gives up when their miners become unprofitable. The other is if BTC goes up massively in value to like $2500/USD, which will only fuel the arms race even more. Yeah, I know there is a big incentive to spread disinformation to convince people to drop out of mining. So don't try to BS me. Let me hear your honest assessments, or please point me in a direction where I can do research to figure this out.
02-25 12:53 - 'And yet they weren't the first, KNC could have made enough money from selling their entire 28nm production to beat Bitmain before they got off the ground. / Instead KNC (and Bitfury) were betting on making more money long term fr...' by /u/Agrroz removed from /r/Bitcoin within 4-14min
''' And yet they weren't the first, KNC could have made enough money from selling their entire 28nm production to beat Bitmain before they got off the ground. Instead KNC (and Bitfury) were betting on making more money long term from mining themselves. KNC also had a horribly inefficient/expensive product (comparatively), however that was a trade off to have fast time to market. KNC used a large monolithic die and used very expensive components for their VRMs, Bitmain simply beat them with a better design (and we want them to be punished for it?) I have zero sympathies for the mining companies that are struggling/are out of business. Most of them fucked over customers in one way or another, many of them worse than Bitmain ever did. "But they are Chinese" some people will say, well tell that to all the people who got fucked over by Butterflylabs, I bet it will make them feel a lot better. Ah ye who was it that got early miners from BFL now again? [link]1 I guess Bitmain has not sent enough hardware to Luke for "testing" to be on his good side. He also got one of the very first "minirigs" delivered, he might actually have paid for that one however (my memory is fuzzy). No question he jumped the queue however. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Agrroz 1: mi*ef*re*an.com/20**/*4/0*/l*k*-j**s*ow*-off-the-f*rst-but*e**y-*a*s-asic-bitc*i*-mine*/ Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
BFL is possibly misleading customers to get pre-orders.
On their 300GH and 600GH cards BFL has now replaced the "Pre-Order" button with an "Order" button instead. Nothing about the checkout procedure itself even hints this is a pre-order. The few notices that these are pre-orders are at the main products page: Here Huh, look at that, those buttons say pre-order instead.. and some various text mostly near the bottom of the individual pages.
This is a pre-order. 28nm ASIC bitcoin mining hardware products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 3 months or more after order. All sales are final.
I'm sorry but shouldn't the product name have "PRE-ORDER" affixed to it? Especially when it's in the cart.. I can easily skim the page, think I'm getting an awesome deal, add it to my cart and make full unrefundable payment without notice otherwise. This strikes me as deceptive sales practices. Be alert guys!
Australian company launches sales of Bitcoin Mining Hardware
Payonix Technologies Pty Ltd is launching sales of the ASIC Mining units. Payonix is now taking pre-orders for December 2013 delivery on its in-house designed ONIX Series ASIC mining rigs – representing the highest performance Bitcoin mining hardware that are currently announced. The 28nm ONIX-LC ASIC is both incredibly powerful and energy efficient. The ONIX-LC is being offered by Payonix as a chip to directly power the ONIX Series rigs. Pricing for units begins at $1,999 for the ONIX XS 250GH/s plug and play unit, the ONIX XR 500GH/s Plug and Play unit will sell for $3,799, and $7,499 for the 1TH/s ONIX XRS unit. "We are pleased to announce we are accepting pre-orders for our Bitcoin hardware units. Many talented people have worked tirelessly to bring this technology direct to the Australian market. With only 250 units in total on offer and to be delivered by December 15, 2013, we expect them to sell quite quickly", said Andrew Thomas, Co-Founder of Payonix Technologies. Payonix Technologies was founded by a team of experienced hardware developers, cryptographers, and Bitcoin community peers, and recently closed a $1M round of funding from a range of private Angel investors who recognised the potential of the company’s unique team and technology. The company’s founding members include CEO Andrew Thomas, who was previously a Data System Manager and Lead Cryptographer for Datamonitor in the US.
*On this thread you will find details from the most important Official ACtM news releases, statements and published facts for easy reference. * Active Mining Corporation (ACtM) is the parent company of Virtual Mining Corp (VMC) and is made up of a team of dedicated Bitcoin mining professionals with over 30 years of combined experience. The current company structure is as follows: Active Mining Corporation Management Team: Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO Virtual Mining Corporation Management Team: Kenneth E. Slaughter, CEO/CTO Gerald L. Slaughter, COO/CFO Micah Slaughter, VP Manufacturing Operations Darin Carolus, VP Marketing VMC also has 2 in-house Engineers in San Jose and a Project Manager working very closely with eASIC. ACtM company offices are in Springfield MO - VMC website http://virtualminingcorp.com/index.html eASIC 28nm ASIC Since IPO, ACtM/VMC has been perusing a 28nm ASIC chip with eASIC. http://www.easic.com/ In September ACtM and eASIC released a joint statement: Santa Clara, CA and Springfield, MO – September 4, 2013 – eASIC Corporation, a leading provider of NEW ASIC devices and Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) today announced that VMC will use eASICs 28nm Nextreme-3 devices to create a series of scalable Bitcoin mining machines capable of generating up to 24.756 TH/s. The above chip roll-out was delayed by ACtM in September due to concerns over ROI with BTC value at only 140 USD and competitors chips at 4-500GH/s. The ACtM chip was therefore returned to the design stage and the result is a more refined and more efficient full custom 28nm device which eASIC are presently in the process of producing. Chip specs will be known shortly. This chip will be available for: bulk sales, the ACtM mining farm, and will be sold in premium high-power machines for retail and industrial customers. This chip is expected in Q3 2014. UMC 55nm ASIC On the 21st January 2014 ActM surprised investors when they published this press release: Springfield, MO and Santa Jose, CA – January 21, 2014 – Active Mining Corporation (Belize) (AMC) a bitcoin Mining and Hardware Manufacture, and People's ASIC a stealth Silicon Valley startup founded by two veteran engineers is proud to announce today the tape-out of their 55 nm UMC Bitcoin Mining ASIC. Simultaneously, AMC has acquired the Intellectual Property for the 55nm UMC Bitcoin Mining ASIC. Delivery of chips is expected in Q2/2014. Also, AMC will use the same design team and code which successfully taped out the 55 nm on AMC's eASIC's 28 nm. This new full custom 55nm project (wholly owned by ACtM) is at a more advanced stage than the eASIC custom 28nm ASIC and has been taped out by UMC. http://www.umc.com/english/process/c.asp This chip will be utilised in scalable bitcoin mining machines capable of generating upto 10.488TH/s. The published specs of the UMC fabbed chip include: 11mm x 11m package, 1.9 GH/s, 2.5 Watts per chip which is 1.315789474W/GH (before Intellihash is applied) This chip will be available for: bulk sales, the ACtM mining farm, and will be sold in budget medium-power machines for retail and industrial customers. This chip is expected in Q2 2014. *Intellihash (TM) * Intellishash (TM) is a unique in-house process designed by ACtM and its engineering team which extends or boosts the usefull hashing life of Bitcoin mining ASIC's. For commercial reasons the full details of this technology are confidential. The process can be applied to ACtM chips and will boost chip lifetime-performance as hash-difficulty rises. The percentage of increased life-time efficiency over a standard ASIC chip is not public knowledge, but the boost is expected to be significant over non-Intellishash capable chips (ie competitors chips). ACtM mining farm With their own mining farm ACtM expect to utilise first their 55nm based rigs which generate 10.488 TH/s and shortly after their 28nm based rigs which generate 24.576 TH/s. Electricity costs for ACtM are stated to be around 0.017 $/kWh. Shares Due to increased shareholder requests to implement a trading solution ASAP ACtM shares will be listed on Hong-Kong based Crytpo-Trade https://crypto-trade.com/ in the next few days. 28/1/2014. All shares on Bitfunder were requested to be tendered to the 'AMC-TENDER' holding account before the closure of BF so that Ken could batch-process them onto a new exchange when one was ready. Any holder who carried out the tender on BF should receive an email notification soon which will lead them to log-in to an auto-created account on CryptoTrade. At this point no account needs to be manually opened. The most recent information on this move is: 'The transfer of shares from AMC-TENDER to Crypto-Trade will be via an automated site. To verify your shares, you will need an email address that you want to register as a account on Crypto-Trade (fine if you already have an account using that email, shares will just be added to that account), the number of shares transferred to AMC-TENDER, and your AMC-TENDER transfer date and time of transfer (from your Bitfunder transfer logs, or from the screenshot you made of the transfer).' For the many shareholders who did not carry out the BF tender (or who do not have the date and time of your tender), you will likely be requested to confirm your identity by signing from your wallet address which you registered on the Bitfunder site before you can access your CryptoTrade account. Due to the manual processing of your shares (not part of the tender batch-processing) you may gain access to your shares sometime after those who did fulfill the tender request. Shareholder guarantee There are a total of 10,000,000 (10 Million) publicly held shares in ACtM that represent interests in all VMC, and ACtM profits. The shareholder guarantee states that these 10M shares will receive all dividends until a total of 0.0025BTC has been paid per share. Currently less than 2% of this total has been paid out. After the 0.0025BTC has been paid to each publicly held share the CEO's holding of 15 Million shares will also begin to receive dividends so that all profits are then shared out equally between the final total of 25,000,000 shares. Ukyo Shares Through his Bitfunder securities exchange and WeExchange processing site Ukyo misplaced, lost or miss-invested over 6,000BTC from the community. ACtM had company funds in both Bitfunder (38BTC approx) and WeEx (70BTC approx) which represented assets raised from the IPO, funds for the purposes of paying dividends, and funds being used to transfer ACtM shares to CryptoStocks via a free transfer option for share holders. (This scheme was in it's very early days and so only a few thousand shares were exchanged to CS before Bitfunder was closed). These monies appear to have been lost and after legal notice was served on Ukyo for the return of these funds no refund was made. ACtM has therefore adopted the rights of lien under Corporation Law to seize Ukyo's ACtM share holdings. Ukyo held approx 232,000 shares in ACtM. These shares are being sold on Crypto Trade solely for the purposes of reimbursing ACtM lost funds and legal fees and costs relating to this case. Once these funds have been reimbursed the remaining shares/raised BTC will be returned to either Ukyo or a rightful third party so that the community can get back some of their lost monies. At the current listed price it is expected that only 5% of the seized shares need to be sold to reimburse ACtM leaving 95% for other parties. However should that listed price (0.01BTC) not be reached, more numbers of shares will need to be sold at a lower price. Pre-order Refunds With BTC savings retained from the IPO, and BTC having appreciated almost 10fold, ACtM has ample liquid assets to refund 100% of all pre-orders plus continue with full production of the 55nm and 28nm projects. Of the few pre-order customers who have requested a refund all have been repaid in full in a timely manner. Pre-orders paid for in FIAT are currently held in FIAT by the company to safeguard this company liability from a fall in BTC prices.
Someone please proofread what I have written below, so it can be posted on r/environment and other such subreddits.
Here is the title. Bitcoin requires a tremendous amount of electricity to be maintain, but there are much more environmentally-friendly, alternative cryptocurrencies. Please demand that merchants accept the environmentally friendly alternatives. Executive Summary: Large Bitcoin mining operations are now being constructed in places where they unnecessarily squander the least expensive, renewable hydro-electric and geothermal-electric resources. There are very environmentally-friendly, readily-available, alternative cryptocurrencies such as Blackcoin and NXT that do not pose a threat to these precious renewable resources. The environmentally unfriendly coins that require a lot of electricity to mine are called Proof of Work (PoW) coins. The environmentally friendly alternatives like Blackcoin and NXT are called Proof of Stake (PoS) coins. The price spike in bitcoin last fall has led to an arms race to adopt electricity-gobbling, specialized mining equipment in the pursuit of corporate mining profits. They were not required to maintain Bitcoin prior to their invention. Specialized mining equipment for a second class of coins, which are similar to Litecoin, another PoW coin, is about to start shipping. This will lead to another large surge in unnecessary corporate mining operations and greatly increase the electrical demand in the race for corporate mining profits. You can read the long report below.to find out more about the issue, and you can visit blackcoin and NXT at the links below to find out more about our coins. If you have heard enough and just want to do something quick and simple to support our efforts, visit blackcoin and NXT, click on our subscriber button to show your support, and then watch us take on Bitcoin. While you visit the two subreddits, you can judge for yourself which one you think will succeed. Hopefully, some respected environmentalist will start campaigns to get merchants that already accept Bitcoin and Litecoin to start accepting the environmentally friendly alternatives. http://www.reddit.com/blackcoin http://us.reddit.com/NXT/ Electrical requirement to mine PoW coins: The Bitcoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin ledger are maintained by miners who compete against each other to see who can first find the next page for their blockchains. Only the miner that wins the race for each ledger page gets paid in coins. As a result of this competition and the late 2013 price spike, Bitcoin mining corporate startups are popping up in central Washington State as documented in the first link below to take advantage of the inexpensive, renewable hydro-electricity and in Iceland as documented in the second link below to take advantage of the renewable hydro and geothermal resources. If bitcoin continue to expand, it will unnecessarily eat up more and more of these valuable renewable resources Link to Washington State Bitcoin mining article http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/ap26/northwests-cheap-power-drawing-bitcoin-miners/ Link to Iceland Bitcoin mining article http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/23/morning-agenda-the-bitcoin-mines-of-iceland/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 The next surge in electricity requirement is about to happen: The mining hardware manufacturers are about to start shipping specialized mining equipment that can only mine the Litecoin and Dogecoin type of PoW coins as documented in the two links below. This new front in the mining arms race will gobble up much more precious renewable electricity in the competitive pursuit of corporate mining profits than is currently required to update the ledgers of these coins. http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/innosilicon-a2-terminator-scrypt-asics-first-28nm-chips-litecoin-dogecoin-mining/2014/04/30 https://coinreport.net/zeusminer-pre-orders-scrypt-asic-miners/ http://www.coindesk.com/mining-roundup-multipools-doge-amazon-ec2-11ghs-usb-sticks/ This specialized equipment is prostituting the original bitcoin promise The tremendously profitable mining of crypto coins that are competitively produced is unnecessarily prostituting the original concept of their inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto. He envisioned bitcoins as being mined on standard personal computers while preforming other useful tasks. Instead, special computer hardware is being manufactured costing upwards to $10,000 apiece which can perform only one task. These individual units are being racked up in warehouses now. This specialized equipment was not required for Bitcoin prior to its invention and is not required currently for Litecoin and Dogecoin. However, it is coming anyway producing an unnecessary arm race in the pursuit of corporate profits. These specialized dev ices are energy inefficient in a second ways. These specialized devices generate so much heat that they require elaborate energy-intensive cooling system for large operation. One of the most elaborate of these cooling systems is documented in the link below for a Hong Cong corporate mining operation that emerges the energy-wasting equipment in boiling goo to keep it cool. Thus, not only does it take electricity to run the equipment for these large operations, but more to keep it all cool. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/2/5165428/bitcoin-mine-in-hong-kong-uses-jelly-to-keep-cool PoS coins are the environmentally friendly alternative. In contrast, the ledger pages of coins like Blackcoin and NXT are generated by stakeholders who cooperate to perform the task which are being done on standard multitasking computers. Many of these computers would be running anyway as originally envisioned by the inventor of the blockchain. If you have heard enough and just want to do something quick and simple to support our efforts, visit blackcoin and NXT, click on our subscriber button to show your support, and then watch us take on Bitcoin. While you visit the two subreddits, you can judge for yourself which one you think will succeed. Hopefully, some respected environmentalist will start campaigns to get merchants that already accept Bitcoin and Litecoin to start accepting the environmentally friendly alternatives. http://www.reddit.com/blackcoin http://us.reddit.com/NXT/
Looking for Assistance:Is mining profitable with my HW and are my calculations right?
So I actually became interested with mining bitcoins and I've stumbled upon mixed opinions about this.As far is I know,people are using ASIC's as I intend to do,but it seems most of them are now pretty much(no offense) outdated Avalons and such that at curent diff of finding Bitcoin are no longer cost effective(correct me If i Am wrong). I plan huge ammount of money(Since i believe its worthy cause and good investment) buying one of these http://www.xtrememiners.net/#!products/cngp I know i shouldnt hesitate and be sure about this Since I made my calculations roughly 4 days in row,but overal numbers seems to be Too good to be true If merely every1 is leaving mining atm,So I wanted to ask If there is some1 who would assist me in ways of assuring me If its good investment or not and If my calculations are truly that good or If i did some mistake and mine numbers are more or less biased. This is hardware i plan to use: 2,5 TH/s Dimensions: 15“ x 13.3“ x 13.7“ (38cm x 34cm x 35cm) 28nm ASIC technology Silent Cooling In-built WiFi Connection (without Antenna) Less than 750 watt (0.3 per GH) 1 Year Guarantee Current bitcoin difficuilty:1,418,481,395 Local electricity cost: 0,25$/kWh Exchange rate:something arround 800 My numbers are in simple: BTC per day:roughly 0,7 BTC Break even:est.11 days Monthly profit: 16 000$ As you can see,16 000$ monthly is a HUGE amount of money and Its little Too good to be true from buying a machine that costs 5.8k$. Anyways thanks for any assist you can give me.IF my numbers are wrong and biased,please suggest a different way of making mining bitcoins.I know buying and selling BTC would pay off better,but i simply Dont have to time to sit by pc and watch as Bitcoin is rising and falling on his price. Thank you very much. Axios
Butterfly Labs suggests the Federal Trade Commission is “going to war with bitcoin”...
I'm of the sentiment that BFL has been a bad player. I was one of the first to purchase their ASIC line, I bought two of their Jalapenos, and even upgraded them both for $100 each. I made the purchase in April of 2013, and didn't receive product until November. I lost all kinds of confidence in that company, and when they announced their next generation, I stood by and observed. There was no way that I was giving this company any more of my money. BFL has been at war with the Bitcoin community, they have it the other way around. If there is going to be any kind of regulation, I'm in favor of consumer protection laws that would prevent bad actors from entering the space. It's one thing to start a crowd funding effort with investor money to design top of the line hardware, it's another thing to essentially sell vaporware. How many other ASIC manufacturers have released superior hardware since the announcement of Monarch? (KNC released 28nm before BFL started shipping 56nm) I know it's a stretch, but I hope when the FTC gets around to liquidating BFL's assets, that there be a clause to refund remittances to ALL of their customers. We're not happy with you BFL. #bendgate
Bitcoin Mining Hardware: Basic Principles and Reviews. With an increased complexity of bitcoin mining, it is no longer profitable to use standard CPU or GPU powers to get income.The reason is the high level of competition on the market.Therefore, a new industry of customized bitcoin mining hardware appeared a few years ago.. Today, ASIC mining hardware (application-specific integrated circuit ... When assessing ASIC hardware with the intent of Bitcoin mining, you’ll need to weigh up the power of the hardware versus the amount of power it draws, along with the cost of electricity in your region. In this article, we break down the 10 best Bitcoin mining hardware machines of 2020, presenting a breakdown of hash rate, power draw, and potential profitability. What to Consider When ... Bitcoin basiert auf der Blockchain-Technologie, einer dezentralen Plattform, die einer zentralen Behörde die Macht entzieht und diese an eine durchschnittliche Person weitergibt. 28nm (vollständig benutzerdefiniert) Benötigt weitere Informationen (siehe Anmerkungen für Details) Klicken Sie auf die Schaltfläche "OK", um Ihre Änderungen zu aktivieren, und starten Sie den Computer neu, um ... Start-up CoinTerra developed a 28nm ASIC that marks a milestone for bitcoin mining in terms of power density, and shipped a system that equips four of them—all done in eight months. This story paints a picture of a headlong race to hardware acceleration in the emerging bitcoin economy. Bitcoin is the most high profile of several emerging digital exchanges founded on a set of mathematical ... Hardware Page /> Ant Miner S9. Since from the start, Bitcoin's Difficulty has recorded a very few and much of the time consecutive month to month increases , especially from late November 2015. It moved from 520,569,941 GH/s to the present record high of 1,426,731,353 GH/s, which infers Difficulty has nearly tripled starting now and into the foreseeable future.
Here is a preview of 2 new 1TH Bitcoin miners we are currently testing which both use the 28nm CoinCraft A1 ASICs. We'll be importing bulk orders on the machine that proves to be most stable. If you are interested in cloud mining, please help by clicking this link: http://bit.ly/Iyf6bM - It's an interesting and very easy alternative to hardware-ba... This product is available at http://bit.ly/1KqIVq7 The Bitmain AntMiner S4 is the most power-efficient Bitcoin miner currently on the market. While other man... 722 GH/s - HashFast's Golden Nonce has met it's match! See our GN 28nm ASIC on the new Yoli Evo Mining Board!!! Go To http://bit.ly/147hDDX Bitmain's 3rd generation Bitcoin mining ASIC, the BM1384 provides significant improvements over the previous BM1382 chip. Hashrat...