Best GPU for mining and gaming in 2020 NiceHash

MiningPoolHub

This sub is strictly focused on mining on the MiningPoolHub service.
[link]

[ANN][ANDROID MINING][AIRDROP] NewEnglandcoin: Scrypt RandomSpike

New England
New England 6 States Songs: https://www.reddit.com/newengland/comments/er8wxd/new_england_6_states_songs/
NewEnglandcoin
Symbol: NENG
NewEnglandcoin is a clone of Bitcoin using scrypt as a proof-of-work algorithm with enhanced features to protect against 51% attack and decentralize on mining to allow diversified mining rigs across CPUs, GPUs, ASICs and Android phones.
Mining Algorithm: Scrypt with RandomSpike. RandomSpike is 3rd generation of Dynamic Difficulty (DynDiff) algorithm on top of scrypt.
1 minute block targets base difficulty reset: every 1440 blocks subsidy halves in 2.1m blocks (~ 2 to 4 years) 84,000,000,000 total maximum NENG 20000 NENG per block Pre-mine: 1% - reserved for dev fund ICO: None RPCPort: 6376 Port: 6377
NewEnglandcoin has dogecoin like supply at 84 billion maximum NENG. This huge supply insures that NENG is suitable for retail transactions and daily use. The inflation schedule of NengEnglandcoin is actually identical to that of Litecoin. Bitcoin and Litecoin are already proven to be great long term store of value. The Litecoin-like NENG inflation schedule will make NewEnglandcoin ideal for long term investment appreciation as the supply is limited and capped at a fixed number
Bitcoin Fork - Suitable for Home Hobbyists
NewEnglandcoin core wallet continues to maintain version tag of "Satoshi v0.8.7.5" because NewEnglandcoin is very much an exact clone of bitcoin plus some mining feature changes with DynDiff algorithm. NewEnglandcoin is very suitable as lite version of bitcoin for educational purpose on desktop mining, full node running and bitcoin programming using bitcoin-json APIs.
The NewEnglandcoin (NENG) mining algorithm original upgrade ideas were mainly designed for decentralization of mining rigs on scrypt, which is same algo as litecoin/dogecoin. The way it is going now is that NENG is very suitable for bitcoin/litecoin/dogecoin hobbyists who can not , will not spend huge money to run noisy ASIC/GPU mining equipments, but still want to mine NENG at home with quiet simple CPU/GPU or with a cheap ASIC like FutureBit Moonlander 2 USB or Apollo pod on solo mining setup to obtain very decent profitable results. NENG allows bitcoin litecoin hobbyists to experience full node running, solo mining, CPU/GPU/ASIC for a fun experience at home at cheap cost without breaking bank on equipment or electricity.
MIT Free Course - 23 lectures about Bitcoin, Blockchain and Finance (Fall,2018)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63UUkfL0onkxF6MYgVa04Fn
CPU Minable Coin Because of dynamic difficulty algorithm on top of scrypt, NewEnglandcoin is CPU Minable. Users can easily set up full node for mining at Home PC or Mac using our dedicated cheetah software.
Research on the first forked 50 blocks on v1.2.0 core confirmed that ASIC/GPU miners mined 66% of 50 blocks, CPU miners mined the remaining 34%.
NENG v1.4.0 release enabled CPU mining inside android phones.
Youtube Video Tutorial
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdOoPvAjzlE How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in Windows 10 Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHnRJvJRzZg
How to CPU Mine NewEnglandcoin (NENG) in macOS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zj7NLMeNSOQ
Decentralization and Community Driven NewEnglandcoin is a decentralized coin just like bitcoin. There is no boss on NewEnglandcoin. Nobody nor the dev owns NENG.
We know a coin is worth nothing if there is no backing from community. Therefore, we as dev do not intend to make decision on this coin solely by ourselves. It is our expectation that NewEnglandcoin community will make majority of decisions on direction of this coin from now on. We as dev merely view our-self as coin creater and technical support of this coin while providing NENG a permanent home at ShorelineCrypto Exchange.
Twitter Airdrop
Follow NENG twitter and receive 100,000 NENG on Twitter Airdrop to up to 1000 winners
Graphic Redesign Bounty
Top one award: 90.9 million NENG Top 10 Winners: 500,000 NENG / person Event Timing: March 25, 2019 - Present Event Address: NewEnglandcoin DISCORD at: https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Please complete above Twitter Bounty requirement first. Then follow Below Steps to qualify for the Bounty: (1) Required: submit your own designed NENG logo picture in gif, png jpg or any other common graphic file format into DISCORD "bounty-submission" board (2) Optional: submit a second graphic for logo or any other marketing purposes into "bounty-submission" board. (3) Complete below form.
Please limit your submission to no more than two total. Delete any wrongly submitted or undesired graphics in the board. Contact DISCORD u/honglu69#5911 or u/krypton#6139 if you have any issues.
Twitter Airdrop/Graphic Redesign bounty sign up: https://goo.gl/forms/L0vcwmVi8c76cR7m1
Milestones
Roadmap
NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/NENG_2020_Q3_report/NENG_2020_Q3_report.pdf
RandomSpike - NENG core v1.3.0 Hardfork Upgrade Proposal https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2020Q1_Report/Scrypt_RandomSpike_NENGv1.3.0_Hardfork_Proposal.pdf
NENG Security, Decentralization & Valuation
https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/2019Q2_report/NENG_Security_Decentralization_Value.pdf
Whitepaper v1.0 https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/download/whitepaper_v1.0/NENG_WhitePaper.pdf
DISCORD https://discord.gg/UPeBwgs
Explorer
http://www.findblocks.com/exploreNENG http://86.100.49.209/exploreNENG http://nengexplorer.mooo.com:3001/
Step by step guide on how to setup an explorer: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/nengexplorer
Github https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin
Wallet
Android with UserLand App (arm64/armhf), Chromebook (x64/arm64/armhf): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.5
Linux Wallet (Ubuntu/Linux Mint, Debian/MX Linux, Arch/Manjaro, Fedora, openSUSE): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.3
MacOS Wallet (10.11 El Capitan or higher): https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0.2
Android with GNUroot on 32 bits old Phones (alpha release) wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.4.0
Windows wallet: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/NewEnglandCoin/releases/tag/v1.3.0.1
addnode ip address for the wallet to sync faster, frequently updated conf file: https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpumineblob/mastenewenglandcoin.conf-example
How to Sync Full Node Desktop Wallet https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/er6f0q/how_to_sync_full_node_desktop_wallet/
TWITTER https://twitter.com/newenglandcoin
REDDIT https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/
Cheetah CPU Miner Software https://github.com/ShorelineCrypto/cheetah_cpuminer
Solo Mining with GPU or ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52187727#msg52187727
How to Run Two Full Node in Same Desktop PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53581449#msg53581449
ASIC/GPU Mining Pools Warning to Big ASIC Miners Due to DynDiff Algo on top of Scrypt, solo mining is recommended for ASIC/GPU miners. Further more, even for mining pools, small mining pool will generate better performance than big NENG mining pool because of new algo v1.2.x post hard fork.
The set up configuration of NENG for scrypt pool mining is same as a typical normal scrypt coin. In other word, DynDiff on Scrypt algo is backward compatible with Scrypt algo. Because ASIC/GPU miners rely on CPU miners for smooth blockchain movement, checkout bottom of "Latest News" section for A WARNING to All ASIC miners before you decide to dump big ASIC hash rate into NENG mining.
(1) Original DynDiff Warning: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708 (2) New Warning on RandomSpike Spike difficulty (244k) introduced in RandomSpike served as roadblocks to instant mining and provide security against 51% attack risk. However, this spike difficulty like a roadblock that makes big ASIC mining less profitable. In case of spike block to be mined, the spike difficulty immediately serve as base difficulty, which will block GPU/ASIC miners effectively and leave CPU cheetah solo miners dominating mining almost 100% until next base difficulty reset.
FindBlocks http://findblocks.com/
CRpool http://crpool.xyz/
Cminors' Pool http://newenglandcoin.cminors-pool.com/
SPOOL https://spools.online/
Exchange
📷
https://shorelinecrypto.com/
Features: anonymous sign up and trading. No restriction or limit on deposit or withdraw.
The trading pairs available: NewEnglandcoin (NENG) / Dogecoin (DOGE)
Trading commission: A round trip trading will incur 0.10% trading fees in average. Fees are paid only on buyer side. buy fee: 0.2% / sell fee: 0% Deposit fees: free for all coins Withdraw fees: ZERO per withdraw. Mining fees are appointed by each coin blockchain. To cover the blockchain mining fees, there is minimum balance per coin per account: * Dogecoin 2 DOGE * NewEnglandcoin 1 NENG
Latest News Aug 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.5 Released for Android/Chromebook Upgrade with armhf, better hardware support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg55098029#msg55098029
Aug 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.4 Released for Android arm64 Upgrade / Chromebook Support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54977437#msg54977437
Jul 30, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.3 Released for Linux Wallet Upgrade with 8 Distros https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54898540#msg54898540
Jul 21, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.2 Released for MacOS Upgrade with Catalina https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54839522#msg54839522
Jul 19, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0.1 Released for MacOS Wallet Upgrade https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54830333#msg54830333
Jul 15, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Released for Android Mining, Ubuntu 20.04 support https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54803639#msg54803639
Jul 11, 2020 - NENG v1.4.0 Android Mining, randomSpike Evaluation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54777222#msg54777222
Jun 27, 2020 - Pre-Announce: NENG v1.4.0 Proposal for Mobile Miner Upgrade, Android Mining Start in July 2020 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54694233#msg54694233
Jun 19, 2020 - Best Practice for Futurebit Moonlander2 USB ASIC on solo mining mode https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54645726#msg54645726
Mar 15, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG v1.3.0.1 Released for better wallet syncing https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg54030923#msg54030923
Feb 23, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike - NENG Core v1.3.0 Relased, Hardfork on Mar 1 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53900926#msg53900926
Feb 1, 2020 - Scrypt RandomSpike Proposal Published- NENG 1.3.0 Hardfork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53735458#msg53735458
Jan 15, 2020 - NewEnglandcoin Dev Team Expanded with New Kickoff https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg53617358#msg53617358
Jan 12, 2020 - Explanation of Base Diff Reset and Effect of Supply https://www.reddit.com/NewEnglandCoin/comments/envmo1/explanation_of_base_diff_reset_and_effect_of/
Dec 19, 2019 - Shoreline_tradingbot version 1.0 is released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5121953.msg53391184#msg53391184
Sept 1, 2019 - NewEnglandcoin (NENG) is Selected as Shoreline Tradingbot First Supported Coin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52331201#msg52331201
Aug 15, 2019 - Mining Update on Effect of Base Difficulty Reset, GPU vs ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg52169572#msg52169572
Jul 7, 2019 - CPU Mining on macOS Mojave is supported under latest Cheetah_Cpuminer Release https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51745839#msg51745839
Jun 1, 2019 - NENG Fiat project is stopped by Square, Inc https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg51312291#msg51312291
Apr 21, 2019 - NENG Fiat Project is Launched by ShorelineCrypto https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50714764#msg50714764
Apr 7, 2019 - Announcement of Fiat Project for all U.S. Residents & Mobile Miner Project Initiation https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50506585#msg50506585
Apr 1, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50417196#msg50417196
Mar 27, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50332097#msg50332097
Mar 17, 2019 - Disclosure on Large Buying on NENG at ShorelineCrypto Exchange https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg50208194#msg50208194
Feb 26, 2019 - Community Project - NewEnglandcoin Graphic Redesign Bounty Initiated https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49931305#msg49931305
Feb 22, 2019 - Dev Policy on Checkpoints on NewEnglandcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49875242#msg49875242
Feb 20, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.1 Released to Secure the Hard Kork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49831059#msg49831059
Feb 11, 2019 - NewEnglandCoin v1.2.0 Released, Anti-51% Attack, Anti-instant Mining after Hard Fork https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49685389#msg49685389
Jan 13, 2019 - Cheetah_CpuMiner added support for CPU Mining on Mac https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49218760#msg49218760
Jan 12, 2019 - NENG Core v1.1.2 Released to support MacOS OSX Wallet https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49202088#msg49202088
Jan 2, 2019 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.1.0 is released for both Linux and Windows https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg49004345#msg49004345
Dec 31, 2018 - Technical Whitepaper is Released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48990334#msg48990334
Dec 28, 2018 - Cheetah_Cpuminer v1.0.0 is released for Linux https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48935135#msg48935135
Update on Dec 14, 2018 - NENG Blockchain Stuck Issue https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48668375#msg48668375
Nov 27, 2018 - Exclusive for PC CPU Miners - How to Steal a Block from ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48258465#msg48258465
Nov 28, 2018 - How to CPU Mine a NENG block with window/linux PC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48298311#msg48298311
Nov 29, 2018 - A Warning to ASIC Miners https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5027091.msg48324708#msg48324708
Disclosure: Dev Team Came from ShorelineCrypto, a US based Informatics Service Business offering Fee for service for Coin Creation, Coin Exchange Listing, Blockchain Consulting, etc.
submitted by honglu69 to NewEnglandCoin [link] [comments]

Complete Guide to OverdriveNTool

We present the complete guide to overclocking GPUs with OverdriveNTool for your Ethereum Mining Rig! In this special we will write a complete guide to OverdriveNTool, in our opinion the most efficient, fast and immediate software for overclocking GPUs dedicated to mining.
The interface is presented in a very simple and no-frills way, as if to suggest how much the program was created to go directly to the purpose.
We remind you that after installing the drivers (see our guide to build a 6 GPU Ethereum Mining Rig) you will need to go through the Radeon Settings (Radeon Settings), select Game, Global Settings and for each GPU in your mining rig (or mining rig) you will need to make sure that HBCC memory is disabled. Do the same with the Crossfire option, checking that it is also disabled. Reboot the system and verify that all video cards have indeed not enabled HBCC and Crossfire before proceeding.
At the following link the software download and technical specifications: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/overdriventool-tool-for-amd-gpus.416116/
Recall that the GPUs in Atiflash will numerically correspond to the GPUs in ONT and Claymore, without misalignment.
First we open our BIOS previously modified with Bios Polaris or, possibly, a stable Bios Mod downloaded from specialized sites such as Anorak via ONT. However, we can also overclock the original Bios of the GPU. Follow the OverdriveNTool guide carefully when operating at these levels!
Click on New to create a new profile for the selected GPU. At first you will find yourself on the 0 which will correspond to the 0 in Atiflash and Claymore. I repeat once again: identical GPUs can behave differently; for this reason, the most stable final overclocking may vary from card to card. It will be sufficient to load the first profile on each subsequent tab, select New, make the necessary changes and save it with a different name (possibly recognizable, such as GPU1-OC Memory or GPU2-Temp, etc ...).
The stages of the GPU and Ram. On the left we find the stages or clocks of the GPU with relative voltage for each sector. Some users disable the first 6 stages (from P1 to P6) to ensure that once the command for the minion is executed, the GPU immediately goes to the last stage. For those who, like us, restart the RIG once every 2 or 3 days, or even more, it is an unnecessary procedure.
We recommend, at least for the first tests, to leave them activated. Once you have reached the limit of the video card, you can check whether disabling them will bring some improvement in terms of hashing on the screen without the pool being affected. Because in effect our goal is to have a high hash-rate and with a minimum percentage of errors on the pool even at the expense of a lower hash-rate in our RIG.
In the central part we find the speed of the memory divided into 3 sectors. We will operate directly on the latter.
On the right you can see the speed of the fans, the temperature that the fans must maintain (in our bios-mode it is set at 75 ° to which we obviously never arrived), the acoustic limit (in a RIG it is a parameter to always keep consideration).
The last section at the bottom right, the Power, is divided into the maximum reachable temperature (with our Pulse set at 84 ° while with the XFX at 75 °) and the Power Target, strictly linked to the modified Bios that we are overclocking . You can try at the end of all tests, in the event of instability of one or more GPUs, to give less power starting from -25%.
In this guide we will refer to the XFX RX 580 8GB GDDR5, with GPU clock at 1200Mhz and Memory at 2150Mhz. 8 video cards theoretically identical in total.
Let's put into practice what has been written up to now ...
We immediately opted for blocking the stages by operating directly on the latter for both the GPU Clock and the RAM. From these levels it starts to drop with the voltage of both the GPU and the RAM, alternatively always checking hashing, consumption and the stability of the system (usually 5-10 minutes are enough). When the voltage is too low, the GPU will not start undermining.

The goal is to obtain the best performance / consumption ratio, always parameterizing the results obtained on the pool. A very high hashrate or very low consumption can often create numerous errors in the mining phase.


With 8 RX580 8GB video cards we reached a total consumption (thus including all the components of the RIG) of 770 Watts for an average of less than 100 Watts per GPU.

The result was achieved by bringing the GPU clock voltage to 1000 and the RAM to 900. Lower values ​​are theoretically possible but could cause system instability. As mentioned previously, each video card is different from the others and on one of the eight GPUs we were forced to lower the power by 25%.

After these tweaks, we got results on the pool with a hashrate often higher than 240mhs.


We would like to emphasize that GPU overclocking is the absolute operation that will take you the longest time. It can take hours to reach the so-called "sweet spot" of each video card. Our OverdriveNTool guide will surely help you!

But this achievement will give you great satisfaction, we guarantee it.
Below the stable settings for the RX Vega 64 video cards of our 13 GPU Mining Rig of which you can see some videos on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdE9TTHAOtyKxy59rALSprA

Complete Guide to OverdriveNTool
See you soon for the next guide dedicated to mining!

If you liked this article and would like to contribute with a donation:

Bitcoin: 1Ld9b165ZYHZcY9eUQmL9UjwzcphRE5S8Z
Ethereum: 0x8D7E456A11f4D9bB9e6683A5ac52e7DB79DBbEE7
Litecoin: LamSRc1jmwgx5xwDgzZNoXYd6ENczUZViK
Stellar: GBLDIRIQWRZCN5IXPIKYFQOE46OG2SI7AFVWFSLAHK52MVYDGVJ6IXGI
Ripple: rUb8v4wbGWYrtXzUpj7TxCFfUWgfvym9xf
By: cryptoall.it Telegram Channel: t.me/giulo75 Netbox Browser: https://netbox.global/PZn5A
submitted by Giulo75 to u/Giulo75 [link] [comments]

Andreas Antonopoulos gets "Satoshi's Vision" completely wrong and shows his misunderstanding of the system. He thinks 1 cpu 1 vote means 1 user 1 vote, a common mistake from people on the Core side.

In this video at the 6m20s mark Andreas Antonopoulos speaks about Satoshi's vision. He speaks about "1 cpu 1 vote" saying that Satoshi designed the system to be decentralized as possible, but Andreas completely misunderstands the meaning of 1 cpu 1 vote. He is falling into the common trap of conflating 1cpu 1 vote with 1 user 1 vote.
Andreas, haven't you even read nChains paper about POW and Theory of the Firm? A cpu is an economic resource:
One of the little-known aspects of bitcoin is the nature of the proof of work system. There are many people, especially those who support a UASF or PoW change that believe a distributed system should be completed as a mesh. In this, they confuse centralised systems with centrality. The truth of the matter, no matter which proof of work system is implemented, they all follow a maximal growth curve that reflects the nature of the firm as detailed in 1937 by Ronald Coase (1937).
The bitcoin White Paper was very specific. users of the system "vote with their CPU power" [1]. What this means, is that the system was never generated to give one vote per person. It is designed purely around economic incentives individuals with more hash power will have provided more investment into the system. These individuals who invest more in the system gain more say in the system. At the same time, no one or even two individuals can gain complete control of the system. We'll explore the nature of cartels in a separately, but these always fail without government intervention. The reason for cartels failing comes down to the simple incentivisation of the most efficient member. The strongest cartel member always ends up propping up the weakest. This leads to a strategy of defection.
No proof of work-based solution ever allows for a scenario where you have one vote to one person. The anti-sybiling functions of bitcoin and all other related systems based on proof of work or similar derivatives are derived from an investment based strategy. Solutions to the implementation of ASIC based systems are constantly proposed as a methodology of limiting the centralisation of proof of work systems as it is termed. The truth of the matter is that the mining function within any proof of work system naturally aligns to business interests. This leads to corporations running machines within data centres. On the way that democracies and republics have migrated away from small groups of people individually voting for an outcome towards a vote for a party, the transactional costs associated with individual choice naturally leads to corporate solutions. In this, the corporation mirrors a political party.
In this paper, we address the issues of using alternate approval work systems with regards to either incorporating alternate functions in an extension of simply securing the network against the use of proof of work systems to create a one person one vote scenario in place of economic incentivisation. We will demonstrate conclusively that all systems migrate to a state of economic efficiency. The consequence of this is that systems form into groups designed to maximise returns. The effect is that bitcoin is not only incentive compatible but is optimal. No system can efficiently collapse into an order of one vote one individual and remain secure. In the firm-based nature of bitcoin, we demonstrate that the inherent nature of the firm is reflected within mining pools. Multiple aggregation strategies exist. The strategies range from the creation of collective firms where members can easily join or leave (mining pools) through to more standard corporate structures
Proof of Work as it relates to the theory of the firm. that are successful within any proof of work system. The system was determined to be based on one- vote per CPU (Satoshi, 2008) and not one vote per person or one vote per IP address. The reasons for this is simple, there is no methodology available that can solve byzantine consensus on an individual basis. The solution developed within bitcoin solves this economically using investment. The parties signal their intent to remain bound to the protocol through a significant investment. Those parties that follow the protocol are rewarded. The alternative strategy takes us back to the former and failed systems such as e-cash that could not adequately solve Sybil attacks and decentralise the network. Bitcoin manages to maintain the decentralise nature of the network through a requirement that no individual party can ever achieve more than 50% of the network hash rate.
In all proof of work systems, there are requirements to inject a costly signal into the network that is designed as the security control. To many people, they believe that the cryptographic element, namely the hashing process is the security feature of bitcoin. This is a fallacy, it is the economic cost that is relevant to the overall system and not the individual element.
The benefits of a hash function are that they are difficult to solve in the nature of the proof of work algorithm but are easy to verify. This economic asymmetry is one of the key features of bitcoin. Once a user has found a solution, they know it can be quickly broadcast and verified by others. Additionally, the hash algorithm provides a fair distribution system based on the amount of invested hash rate. The distinction from proof of stake solution as has been proposed comes in the requirement to constantly reinvest. A proof of stake system requires a single investment. Once this investment is created, the system is incentivised towards the protection of the earlier investment. This leads to a scenario known as a strategic oligopoly game.
The solution using a proof of work algorithm is the introduction of an ongoing investment. This is different to an oligopoly game in that sunk cost cannot make up for continued investment. In a proof of stake system, prior investment is crystallised allowing continued control with little further investment. Proof of work differs in that it requires continuous investment. More than this, it requires innovation. As with all capitalist systems, they are subject to Schumpeterian dynamical change (Shumpeter, 1994). The system of creative destruction allows for cycles of innovation. Each innovation leads to waves of creation over the destruction of the old order.
This process creates continued growth. Proof of work-based systems continue to grow and continue to update and change. Any incumbent corporation or other entity needs to continue to invest knowing that their continued dominance is not assured. In bitcoin, we have seen innovative leaps as people moved from CPU-based mining into GPU-based systems. This initial innovation altered the software structure associated with the mining process in bitcoin. That change significantly altered the playing field leading to novel techniques associated with FPGAs and later ASICs dedicated to a specific part of the mining process.
The error held by many people is that this move from a CPU-based solution into more costly implementations could have been averted. A consequence of this has been the introduction of alternative proof of work systems into many of the alt-coins
These systems have been implemented without the understanding that it is not the use of ASICs that is an issue. It is that the belief that individual users can individually mine in a mesh system will be able to be implemented as a successful proof of work. In the unlikely event that a specialised algorithm was implemented that could only run once on any one machine CPU, it would still lead to the eventual creation of corporate data centres for mining. In the section above, we showed using Arrow’s theorem how only a single use proof of work system can be effective. If we extend this and look at the Theory of the Firm (Coase, 1937) we note that in a system in Litecoin and Dogecoin for example. A00137:
Proof of Work as it relates to the theory of the firm. of prices, reduction could be carried out without any organisation. One issue against this arises from the cost of information. Interestingly, as we move into a world of increasingly more information, it becomes scarce information that is important. As the amount of information becomes more voluminous, the ability to uncover accurate and timely information becomes scarcer. The ability to specialise in the coordination of the various factors of production and the distribution of information leads towards vertical integration within firms. We see this first voiced in Adam Smith’s (Smith, 1776) postulation on the firm:
Everyone can choose to either seek further information or act on the information that they already have. This information can be in the form of market knowledge, product knowledge, or expertise, but at some point, the individual needs to decide to act. There is a cost to obtaining information. The returns on obtaining more information hit a maximum level and start to decrease at a certain point. The entrepreneur acts as a guiding influence managing the risk associated with incomplete information compared to the risk of not acting but rather waiting to obtain more information.
In the instance of bitcoin mining, the firm can increase in size through the integration of multiple specialist roles. Even given the assumption that any one process can run on but a single CPU, we come to the scenario of high-end datacentre servers. The Intel Xeon Phi 7290f implements 72 Atom CPU Cores. Each core runs two threads. Even taking the control system into account, this leaves 142 processes able to run per system. With four cards per RU this allows for datacentre implementations of 5,964 mining processes to run on a pure CPU-based proof of work implementation. One person can manage a small number of mining server implementations within a home or small business environment. In large data centre-based organisations such as Facebook, a single administrator can run 20,000 servers
The effect of this would be one individual managing 2,840,000 individual CPU-based mining processes. This alone is outside the scaling capabilities of any individual. This can be further enhanced as cost savings through the creation of large data centres, management savings and integrating multiple network and systems administrators is considered. As we start to add additional layers we come to a maximum where it is no longer profitable to grow the firm in size. Right up until that point, the firm will grow.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

Are multiple mining algorithms possible with Monero? Can RandomX be added to the system instead of replacing what's in place? Not sure what headaches it would bring for the security part of Monero.

Are multiple mining algorithms possible with Monero? Can RandomX be added to the system instead of replacing what's in place? Not sure what headaches it would bring for the security part of Monero.
Is it possible for Monero to have multiple mining algorithms like Digibyte (DGB)? The idea of keeping the large group of GPU miners to help keep the network decentralized and expand with Random X to bring in a large number of CPU miners. Also, if for some reason Random X doesn't workout we still have current algorithm that gets updated every 6 months. DGB borrowed from Huntercoin which mines 2 algorithms and Myriad that has 5 mining algorithms. Could Monero do the same? I believe DGB also adjust algorithms to keep incentives equal.


Digibyte - Reddit
Decentralization
Decentralization is an important concept for the block-chain and cryptocurrencies in general. This allows for a system which cannot be controlled nor manipulated no matter how large the organization in play or their intentions. DigiByte’s chain remains out of the reach of even the most powerful government. This allows for people to transact freely and openly without fear of censorship.Decentralization on the DigiByte block-chain is assured by having an accessible and fair mining protocol in place – this is the multi-algorithm (MultiAlgo) approach. We believe that all should have access to DigiByte whether through purchase or by mining. Therefore, DigiByte is minable not only on dedicated mining hardware such as Antminers, but also through use of conventional graphics cards. The multi-algorithm approach allows for users to mine on a variety of hardware types through use of one of the 5 mining algorithms supported by DigiByte. Those being:
  • Scrypt
  • SHA256
  • Qubit
  • Skein
  • Groestl
Please note that these mining algorithms are modified and updated from time to time to assure complete decentralization and thus ultimate security.The problem with using only one mining algorithm such as Bitcoin or Litecoin do is that this allows for people to continually amass mining hardware and hash power. The more hash power one has, the more one can collect more. This leads to a cycle of centralization and the creation of mining centers. It is known that a massive portion of all hash power in Bitcoin comes from China. This kind of centralization is a natural tendency as it is cheaper for large organisations to set up in countries with inexpensive electricity and other such advantages which may be unavailable to the average miner.DigiByte mitigates this problem with the use of multiple algorithms. It allows for miners with many different kinds of hardware to mine the same coin on an even playing field. Mining difficulty is set relative to the mining algorithm used. This allows for those with dedicated mining rigs to mine alongside those with more modest machines – and all secure the DigiByte chain while maintaining decentralization.


Let's give every nation a chance to mine
submitted by MoneroMondo to Monero [link] [comments]

New to this, is it a good sign?

New to this, is it a good sign? submitted by Teozac to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency

Searching for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
For someone first starting out as a cryptocurrency investor, finding a trustworthy manual for screening a cryptocurrency’s merits is nonexistent as we are still in the early, Wild West days of the cryptocurrency market. One would need to become deeply familiar with the inner workings of blockchain to be able to perform the bare minimum due diligence.
One might believe, over time, that finding the perfect cryptocurrency may be nothing short of futile. If a cryptocurrency purports infinite scalability, then it is probably either lightweight with limited features or it is highly centralized among a limited number of nodes that perform consensus services especially Proof of Stake or Delegated Proof of Stake. Similarly, a cryptocurrency that purports comprehensive privacy may have technical obstacles to overcome if it aims to expand its applications such as in smart contracts. The bottom line is that it is extremely difficult for a cryptocurrency to have all important features jam-packed into itself.
The cryptocurrency space is stuck in the era of the “dial-up internet” in a manner of speaking. Currently blockchain can’t scale – not without certain tradeoffs – and it hasn’t fully resolved certain intractable issues such as user-unfriendly long addresses and how the blockchain size is forever increasing to name two.
In other words, we haven’t found the ultimate cryptocurrency. That is, we haven’t found the mystical unicorn cryptocurrency that ushers the era of decentralization while eschewing all the limitations of traditional blockchain systems.
“But wait – what about Ethereum once it implements sharding?”
“Wouldn’t IOTA be able to scale infinitely with smart contracts through its Qubic offering?”
“Isn’t Dash capable of having privacy, smart contracts, and instantaneous transactions?”
Those thoughts and comments may come from cryptocurrency investors who have done their research. It is natural for the informed investors to invest in projects that are believed to bring cutting edge technological transformation to blockchain. Sooner or later, the sinking realization will hit that any variation of the current blockchain technology will always likely have certain limitations.
Let us pretend that there indeed exists a unicorn cryptocurrency somewhere that may or may not be here yet. What would it look like, exactly? Let us set the 5 criteria of the unicorn cryptocurrency:
Unicorn Criteria
(1) Perfectly solves the blockchain trilemma:
o Infinite scalability
o Full security
o Full decentralization
(2) Zero or minimal transaction fee
(3) Full privacy
(4) Full smart contract capabilities
(5) Fair distribution and fair governance
For each of the above 5 criteria, there would not be any middle ground. For example, a cryptocurrency with just an in-protocol mixer would not be considered as having full privacy. As another example, an Initial Coin Offering (ICO) may possibly violate criterion (5) since with an ICO the distribution and governance are often heavily favored towards an oligarchy – this in turn would defy the spirit of decentralization that Bitcoin was found on.
There is no cryptocurrency currently that fits the above profile of the unicorn cryptocurrency. Let us examine an arbitrary list of highly hyped cryptocurrencies that meet the above list at least partially. The following list is by no means comprehensive but may be a sufficient sampling of various blockchain implementations:
Bitcoin (BTC)
Bitcoin is the very first and the best known cryptocurrency that started it all. While Bitcoin is generally considered extremely secure, it suffers from mining centralization to a degree. Bitcoin is not anonymous, lacks smart contracts, and most worrisomely, can only do about 7 transactions per seconds (TPS). Bitcoin is not the unicorn notwithstanding all the Bitcoin maximalists.
Ethereum (ETH)
Ethereum is widely considered the gold standard of smart contracts aside from its scalability problem. Sharding as part of Casper’s release is generally considered to be the solution to Ethereum’s scalability problem.
The goal of sharding is to split up validating responsibilities among various groups or shards. Ethereum’s sharding comes down to duplicating the existing blockchain architecture and sharing a token. This does not solve the core issue and simply kicks the can further down the road. After all, full nodes still need to exist one way or another.
Ethereum’s blockchain size problem is also an issue as will be explained more later in this article.
As a result, Ethereum is not the unicorn due to its incomplete approach to scalability and, to a degree, security.
Dash
Dash’s masternodes are widely considered to be centralized due to their high funding requirements, and there are accounts of a pre-mine in the beginning. Dash is not the unicorn due to its questionable decentralization.
Nano
Nano boasts rightfully for its instant, free transactions. But it lacks smart contracts and privacy, and it may be exposed to well orchestrated DDOS attacks. Therefore, it goes without saying that Nano is not the unicorn.
EOS
While EOS claims to execute millions of transactions per seconds, a quick glance reveals centralized parameters with 21 nodes and a questionable governance system. Therefore, EOS fails to achieve the unicorn status.
Monero (XMR)
One of the best known and respected privacy coins, Monero lacks smart contracts and may fall short of infinite scalability due to CryptoNote’s design. The unicorn rank is out of Monero’s reach.
IOTA
IOTA’s scalability is based on the number of transactions the network processes, and so its supposedly infinite scalability would fluctuate and is subject to the whims of the underlying transactions. While IOTA’s scalability approach is innovative and may work in the long term, it should be reminded that the unicorn cryptocurrency has no middle ground. The unicorn cryptocurrency would be expected to scale infinitely on a consistent basis from the beginning.
In addition, IOTA’s Masked Authenticated Messaging (MAM) feature does not bring privacy to the masses in a highly convenient manner. Consequently, the unicorn is not found with IOTA.

PascalCoin as a Candidate for the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
Please allow me to present a candidate for the cryptocurrency unicorn: PascalCoin.
According to the website, PascalCoin claims the following:
“PascalCoin is an instant, zero-fee, infinitely scalable, and decentralized cryptocurrency with advanced privacy and smart contract capabilities. Enabled by the SafeBox technology to become the world’s first blockchain independent of historical operations, PascalCoin possesses unlimited potential.”
The above summary is a mouthful to be sure, but let’s take a deep dive on how PascalCoin innovates with the SafeBox and more. Before we do this, I encourage you to first become acquainted with PascalCoin by watching the following video introduction:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=F25UU-0W9Dk
The rest of this section will be split into 10 parts in order to illustrate most of the notable features of PascalCoin. Naturally, let’s start off with the SafeBox.
Part #1: The SafeBox
Unlike traditional UTXO-based cryptocurrencies in which the blockchain records the specifics of each transaction (address, sender address, amount of funds transferred, etc.), the blockchain in PascalCoin is only used to mutate the SafeBox. The SafeBox is a separate but equivalent cryptographic data structure that snapshots account balances. PascalCoin’s blockchain is comparable to a machine that feeds the most important data – namely, the state of an account – into the SafeBox. Any node can still independently compute and verify the cumulative Proof-of-Work required to construct the SafeBox.
The PascalCoin whitepaper elegantly highlights the unique historical independence that the SafeBox possesses:
“While there are approaches that cryptocurrencies could use such as pruning, warp-sync, "finality checkpoints", UTXO-snapshotting, etc, there is a fundamental difference with PascalCoin. Their new nodes can only prove they are on most-work-chain using the infinite history whereas in PascalCoin, new nodes can prove they are on the most-work chain without the infinite history.”
Some cryptocurrency old-timers might instinctively balk at the idea of full nodes eschewing the entire history for security, but such a reaction would showcase a lack of understanding on what the SafeBox really does.
A concrete example would go a long way to best illustrate what the SafeBox does. Let’s say I input the following operations in my calculator:
5 * 5 – 10 / 2 + 5
It does not take a genius to calculate the answer, 25. Now, the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* would be forever imbued on a traditional blockchain’s history. But the SafeBox begs to differ. It says that the expression “5 \ 5 – 10 / 2 + 5”* should instead be simply “25” so as preserve simplicity, time, and space. In other words, the SafeBox simply preserves the account balance.
But some might still be unsatisfied and claim that if one cannot trace the series of operations (transactions) that lead to the final number (balance) of 25, the blockchain is inherently insecure.
Here are four important security aspects of the SafeBox that some people fail to realize:
(1) SafeBox Follows the Longest Chain of Proof-of-Work
The SafeBox mutates itself per 100 blocks. Each new SafeBox mutation must reference both to the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks in order to be valid, and the resultant hash of the new mutated SafeBox must then be referenced by each of the new subsequent blocks, and the process repeats itself forever.
The fact that each new SafeBox mutation must reference to the previous SafeBox mutation is comparable to relying on the entire history. This is because the previous SafeBox mutation encapsulates the result of cumulative entire history except for the 100 blocks which is why each new SafeBox mutation requires both the previous SafeBox mutation and the preceding 100 blocks.
So in a sense, there is a single interconnected chain of inflows and outflows, supported by Byzantine Proof-of-Work consensus, instead of the entire history of transactions.
More concretely, the SafeBox follows the path of the longest chain of Proof-of-Work simply by design, and is thus cryptographically equivalent to the entire history even without tracing specific operations in the past. If the chain is rolled back with a 51% attack, only the attacker’s own account(s) in the SafeBox can be manipulated as is explained in the next part.
(2) A 51% Attack on PascalCoin Functions the Same as Others
A 51% attack on PascalCoin would work in a similar way as with other Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. An attacker cannot modify a transaction in the past without affecting the current SafeBox hash which is accepted by all honest nodes.
Someone might claim that if you roll back all the current blocks plus the 100 blocks prior to the SafeBox’s mutation, one could create a forged SafeBox with different balances for all accounts. This would be incorrect as one would be able to manipulate only his or her own account(s) in the SafeBox with a 51% attack – just as is the case with other UTXO cryptocurrencies. The SafeBox stores the balances of all accounts which are in turn irreversibly linked only to their respective owners’ private keys.
(3) One Could Preserve the Entire History of the PascalCoin Blockchain
No blockchain data in PascalCoin is ever deleted even in the presence of the SafeBox. Since the SafeBox is cryptographically equivalent to a full node with the entire history as explained above, PascalCoin full nodes are not expected to contain infinite history. But for whatever reason(s) one may have, one could still keep all the PascalCoin blockchain history as well along with the SafeBox as an option even though it would be redundant.
Without storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain, you can still trace the specific operations of the 100 blocks prior to when the SafeBox absorbs and reflects the net result (a single balance for each account) from those 100 blocks. But if you’re interested in tracing operations over a longer period in the past – as redundant as that may be – you’d have the option to do so by storing the entire history of the PascalCoin blockchain.
(4) The SafeBox is Equivalent to the Entire Blockchain History
Some skeptics may ask this question: “What if the SafeBox is forever lost? How would you be able to verify your accounts?” Asking this question is tantamount to asking to what would happen to Bitcoin if all of its entire history was erased. The result would be chaos, of course, but the SafeBox is still in line with the general security model of a traditional blockchain with respect to black swans.
Now that we know the security of the SafeBox is not compromised, what are the implications of this new blockchain paradigm? A colorful illustration as follows still wouldn’t do justice to the subtle revolution that the SafeBox ushers. The automobiles we see on the street are the cookie-and-butter representation of traditional blockchain systems. The SafeBox, on the other hand, supercharges those traditional cars to become the Transformers from Michael Bay’s films.
The SafeBox is an entirely different blockchain architecture that is impressive in its simplicity and ingenuity. The SafeBox’s design is only the opening act for PascalCoin’s vast nuclear arsenal. If the above was all that PascalCoin offers, it still wouldn’t come close to achieving the unicorn status but luckily, we have just scratched the surface. Please keep on reading on if you want to learn how PascalCoin is going to shatter the cryptocurrency industry into pieces. Buckle down as this is going to be a long read as we explore further about the SafeBox’s implications.
Part #2: 0-Confirmation Transactions
To begin, 0-confirmation transactions are secure in PascalCoin thanks to the SafeBox.
The following paraphrases an explanation of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmations from the whitepaper:
“Since PascalCoin is not a UTXO-based currency but rather a State-based currency thanks to the SafeBox, the security guarantee of 0-confirmation transactions are much stronger than in UTXO-based currencies. For example, in Bitcoin if a merchant accepts a 0-confirmation transaction for a coffee, the buyer can simply roll that transaction back after receiving the coffee but before the transaction is confirmed in a block. The way the buyer does this is by re-spending those UTXOs to himself in a new transaction (with a higher fee) thus invalidating them for the merchant. In PascalCoin, this is virtually impossible since the buyer's transaction to the merchant is simply a delta-operation to debit/credit a quantity from/to accounts respectively. The buyer is unable to erase or pre-empt this two-sided, debit/credit-based transaction from the network’s pending pool until it either enters a block for confirmation or is discarded with respect to both sender and receiver ends. If the buyer tries to double-spend the coffee funds after receiving the coffee but before they clear, the double-spend transaction will not propagate the network since nodes cannot propagate a double-spending transaction thanks to the debit/credit nature of the transaction. A UTXO-based transaction is initially one-sided before confirmation and therefore is more exposed to one-sided malicious schemes of double spending.”
Phew, that explanation was technical but it had to be done. In summary, PascalCoin possesses the only secure 0-confirmation transactions in the cryptocurrency industry, and it goes without saying that this means PascalCoin is extremely fast. In fact, PascalCoin is capable of 72,000 TPS even prior to any additional extensive optimizations down the road. In other words, PascalCoin is as instant as it gets and gives Nano a run for its money.
Part #3: Zero Fee
Let’s circle back to our discussion of PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation capability. Here’s a little fun magical twist to PascalCoin’s 0-confirmation magic: 0-confirmation transactions are zero-fee. As in you don’t pay a single cent in fee for each 0-confirmation! There is just a tiny downside: if you create a second transaction in a 5-minute block window then you’d need to pay a minimal fee. Imagine using Nano but with a significantly stronger anti-DDOS protection for spam! But there shouldn’t be any complaint as this fee would amount to 0.0001 Pascal or $0.00002 based on the current price of a Pascal at the time of this writing.
So, how come the fee for blazingly fast transactions is nonexistent? This is where the magic of the SafeBox arises in three ways:
(1) PascalCoin possesses the secure 0-confirmation feature as discussed above that enables this speed.
(2) There is no fee bidding competition of transaction priority typical in UTXO cryptocurrencies since, once again, PascalCoin operates on secure 0-confirmations.
(3) There is no fee incentive needed to run full nodes on behalf of the network’s security beyond the consensus rewards.
Part #4: Blockchain Size
Let’s expand more on the third point above, using Ethereum as an example. Since Ethereum’s launch in 2015, its full blockchain size is currently around 2 TB, give or take, but let’s just say its blockchain size is 100 GB for now to avoid offending the Ethereum elitists who insist there are different types of full nodes that are lighter. Whoever runs Ethereum’s full nodes would expect storage fees on top of the typical consensus fees as it takes significant resources to shoulder Ethereum’s full blockchain size and in turn secure the network. What if I told you that PascalCoin’s full blockchain size will never exceed few GBs after thousands of years? That is just what the SafeBox enables PascalCoin to do so. It is estimated that by 2072, PascalCoin’s full nodes will only be 6 GB which is low enough not to warrant any fee incentives for hosting full nodes. Remember, the SafeBox is an ultra-light cryptographic data structure that is cryptographically equivalent to a blockchain with the entire transaction history. In other words, the SafeBox is a compact spreadsheet of all account balances that functions as PascalCoin’s full node!
Not only does the SafeBox’s infinitesimal memory size helps to reduce transaction fees by phasing out any storage fees, but it also paves the way for true decentralization. It would be trivial for every PascalCoin user to opt a full node in the form of a wallet. This is extreme decentralization at its finest since the majority of users of other cryptocurrencies ditch full nodes due to their burdensome sizes. It is naïve to believe that storage costs would reduce enough to the point where hosting full nodes are trivial. Take a look at the following chart outlining the trend of storage cost.

* https://www.backblaze.com/blog/hard-drive-cost-per-gigabyte/
As we can see, storage costs continue to decrease but the descent is slowing down as is the norm with technological improvements. In the meantime, blockchain sizes of other cryptocurrencies are increasing linearly or, in the case of smart contract engines like Ethereum, parabolically. Imagine a cryptocurrency smart contract engine like Ethereum garnering worldwide adoption; how do you think Ethereum’s size would look like in the far future based on the following chart?


https://i.redd.it/k57nimdjmo621.png

Ethereum’s future blockchain size is not looking pretty in terms of sustainable security. Sharding is not a fix for this issue since there still needs to be full nodes but that is a different topic for another time.
It is astonishing that the cryptocurrency community as a whole has passively accepted this forever-expanding-blockchain-size problem as an inescapable fate.
PascalCoin is the only cryptocurrency that has fully escaped the death vortex of forever expanding blockchain size. Its blockchain size wouldn’t exceed 10 GB even after many hundreds of years of worldwide adoption. Ethereum’s blockchain size after hundreds of years of worldwide adoption would make fine comedy.
Part #5: Simple, Short, and Ordinal Addresses
Remember how the SafeBox works by snapshotting all account balances? As it turns out, the account address system is almost as cool as the SafeBox itself.
Imagine yourself in this situation: on a very hot and sunny day, you’re wandering down the street across from your house and ran into a lemonade stand – the old-fashioned kind without any QR code or credit card terminal. The kid across you is selling a lemonade cup for 1 Pascal with a poster outlining the payment address as 5471-55. You flip out your phone and click “Send” with 1 Pascal to the address 5471-55; viola, exactly one second later you’re drinking your lemonade without paying a cent for the transaction fee!
The last thing one wants to do is to figure out how to copy/paste to, say, the following address 1BoatSLRHtKNngkdXEeobR76b53LETtpyT on the spot wouldn’t it? Gone are the obnoxiously long addresses that plague all cryptocurrencies. The days of those unreadable addresses will be long gone – it has to be if blockchain is to innovate itself for the general public. EOS has a similar feature for readable addresses but in a very limited manner in comparison, and nicknames attached to addresses in GUIs don’t count since blockchain-wide compatibility wouldn’t hold.
Not only does PascalCoin has the neat feature of having addresses (called PASAs) that amount to up to 6 or 7 digits, but PascalCoin can also incorporate in-protocol address naming as opposed to GUI address nicknames. Suppose I want to order something from Amazon using Pascal; I simply search the word “Amazon” then the corresponding account number shows up. Pretty neat, right?
The astute reader may gather that PascalCoin’s address system makes it necessary to commoditize addresses, and he/she would be correct. Some view this as a weakness; part #10 later in this segment addresses this incorrect perception.
Part #6: Privacy
As if the above wasn’t enough, here’s another secret that PascalCoin has: it is a full-blown privacy coin. It uses two separate foundations to achieve comprehensive anonymity: in-protocol mixer for transfer amounts and zn-SNARKs for private balances. The former has been implemented and the latter is on the roadmap. Both the 0-confirmation transaction and the negligible transaction fee would make PascalCoin the most scalable privacy coin of any other cryptocurrencies pending the zk-SNARKs implementation.
Part #7: Smart Contracts
Next, PascalCoin will take smart contracts to the next level with a layer-2 overlay consensus system that pioneers sidechains and other smart contract implementations.
In formal terms, this layer-2 architecture will facilitate the transfer of data between PASAs which in turn allows clean enveloping of layer-2 protocols inside layer-1 much in the same way that HTTP lives inside TCP.
To summarize:
· The layer-2 consensus method is separate from the layer-1 Proof-of-Work. This layer-2 consensus method is independent and flexible. A sidechain – based on a single encompassing PASA – could apply Proof-of-Stake (POS), Delegated Proof-of-Stake (DPOS), or Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) as the consensus system of its choice.
· Such a layer-2 smart contract platform can be written in any languages.
· Layer-2 sidechains will also provide very strong anonymity since funds are all pooled and keys are not used to unlock them.
· This layer-2 architecture is ingenious in which the computation is separate from layer-2 consensus, in effect removing any bottleneck.
· Horizontal scaling exists in this paradigm as there is no interdependence between smart contracts and states are not managed by slow sidechains.
· Speed and scalability are fully independent of PascalCoin.
One would be able to run the entire global financial system on PascalCoin’s infinitely scalable smart contract platform and it would still scale infinitely. In fact, this layer-2 architecture would be exponentially faster than Ethereum even after its sharding is implemented.
All this is the main focus of PascalCoin’s upcoming version 5 in 2019. A whitepaper add-on for this major upgrade will be released in early 2019.
Part #8: RandomHash Algorithm
Surely there must be some tradeoffs to PascalCoin’s impressive capabilities, you might be asking yourself. One might bring up the fact that PascalCoin’s layer-1 is based on Proof-of-Work and is thus susceptible to mining centralization. This would be a fallacy as PascalCoin has pioneered the very first true ASIC, GPU, and dual-mining resistant algorithm known as RandomHash that obliterates anything that is not CPU based and gives all the power back to solo miners.
Here is the official description of RandomHash:
“RandomHash is a high-level cryptographic hash algorithm that combines other well-known hash primitives in a highly serial manner. The distinguishing feature is that calculations for a nonce are dependent on partial calculations of other nonces, selected at random. This allows a serial hasher (CPU) to re-use these partial calculations in subsequent mining saving 50% or more of the work-load. Parallel hashers (GPU) cannot benefit from this optimization since the optimal nonce-set cannot be pre-calculated as it is determined on-the-fly. As a result, parallel hashers (GPU) are required to perform the full workload for every nonce. Also, the algorithm results in 10x memory bloat for a parallel implementation. In addition to its serial nature, it is branch-heavy and recursive making in optimal for CPU-only mining.”
One might be understandably skeptical of any Proof-of-Work algorithm that solves ASIC and GPU centralization once for all because there have been countless proposals being thrown around for various algorithms since the dawn of Bitcoin. Is RandomHash truly the ASIC & GPU killer that it claims to be?
Herman Schoenfeld, the inventor behind RandomHash, described his algorithm in the following:
“RandomHash offers endless ASIC-design breaking surface due to its use of recursion, hash algo selection, memory hardness and random number generation.
For example, changing how round hash selection is made and/or random number generator algo and/or checksum algo and/or their sequencing will totally break an ASIC design. Conceptually if you can significantly change the structure of the output assembly whilst keeping the high-level algorithm as invariant as possible, the ASIC design will necessarily require proportional restructuring. This results from the fact that ASIC designs mirror the ASM of the algorithm rather than the algorithm itself.”
Polyminer1 (pseudonym), one of the members of the PascalCoin core team who developed RHMiner (official software for mining RandomHash), claimed as follows:
“The design of RandomHash is, to my experience, a genuine innovation. I’ve been 30 years in the field. I’ve rarely been surprised by anything. RandomHash was one of my rare surprises. It’s elegant, simple, and achieves resistance in all fronts.”
PascalCoin may have been the first party to achieve the race of what could possibly be described as the “God algorithm” for Proof-of-Work cryptocurrencies. Look no further than one of Monero’s core developers since 2015, Howard Chu. In September 2018, Howard declared that he has found a solution, called RandomJS, to permanently keep ASICs off the network without repetitive algorithm changes. This solution actually closely mirrors RandomHash’s algorithm. Discussing about his algorithm, Howard asserted that “RandomJS is coming at the problem from a direction that nobody else is.”
Link to Howard Chu’s article on RandomJS:
https://www.coindesk.com/one-musicians-creative-solution-to-drive-asics-off-monero
Yet when Herman was asked about Howard’s approach, he responded:
“Yes, looks like it may work although using Javascript was a bit much. They should’ve just used an assembly subset and generated random ASM programs. In a way, RandomHash does this with its repeated use of random mem-transforms during expansion phase.”
In the end, PascalCoin may have successfully implemented the most revolutionary Proof-of-Work algorithm, one that eclipses Howard’s burgeoning vision, to date that almost nobody knows about. To learn more about RandomHash, refer to the following resources:
RandomHash whitepaper:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/storage/whitepapers/RandomHash_Whitepaper.pdf
Technical proposal for RandomHash:
https://github.com/PascalCoin/PascalCoin/blob/mastePIP/PIP-0009.md
Someone might claim that PascalCoin still suffers from mining centralization after RandomHash, and this is somewhat misleading as will be explained in part #10.
Part #9: Fair Distribution and Governance
Not only does PascalCoin rest on superior technology, but it also has its roots in the correct philosophy of decentralized distribution and governance. There was no ICO or pre-mine, and the developer fund exists as a percentage of mining rewards as voted by the community. This developer fund is 100% governed by a decentralized autonomous organization – currently facilitated by the PascalCoin Foundation – that will eventually be transformed into an autonomous smart contract platform. Not only is the developer fund voted upon by the community, but PascalCoin’s development roadmap is also voted upon the community via the Protocol Improvement Proposals (PIPs).
This decentralized governance also serves an important benefit as a powerful deterrent to unseemly fork wars that befall many cryptocurrencies.
Part #10: Common Misconceptions of PascalCoin
“The branding is terrible”
PascalCoin is currently working very hard on its image and is preparing for several branding and marketing initiatives in the short term. For example, two of the core developers of the PascalCoin recently interviewed with the Fox Business Network. A YouTube replay of this interview will be heavily promoted.
Some people object to the name PascalCoin. First, it’s worth noting that PascalCoin is the name of the project while Pascal is the name of the underlying currency. Secondly, Google and YouTube received excessive criticisms back then in the beginning with their name choices. Look at where those companies are nowadays – surely a somewhat similar situation faces PascalCoin until the name’s familiarity percolates into the public.
“The wallet GUI is terrible”
As the team is run by a small yet extremely dedicated developers, multiple priorities can be challenging to juggle. The lack of funding through an ICO or a pre-mine also makes it challenging to accelerate development. The top priority of the core developers is to continue developing full-time on the groundbreaking technology that PascalCoin offers. In the meantime, an updated and user-friendly wallet GUI has been worked upon for some time and will be released in due time. Rome wasn’t built in one day.
“One would need to purchase a PASA in the first place”
This is a complicated topic since PASAs need to be commoditized by the SafeBox’s design, meaning that PASAs cannot be obtained at no charge to prevent systematic abuse. This raises two seemingly valid concerns:
· As a chicken and egg problem, how would one purchase a PASA using Pascal in the first place if one cannot obtain Pascal without a PASA?
· How would the price of PASAs stay low and affordable in the face of significant demand?
With regards to the chicken and egg problem, there are many ways – some finished and some unfinished – to obtain your first PASA as explained on the “Get Started” page on the PascalCoin website:
https://www.pascalcoin.org/get_started
More importantly, however, is the fact that there are few methods that can get your first PASA for free. The team will also release another method soon in which you could obtain your first PASA for free via a single SMS message. This would probably become by far the simplest and the easiest way to obtain your first PASA for free. There will be more new ways to easily obtain your first PASA for free down the road.
What about ensuring the PASA market at large remains inexpensive and affordable following your first (and probably free) PASA acquisition? This would be achieved in two ways:
· Decentralized governance of the PASA economics per the explanation in the FAQ section on the bottom of the PascalCoin website (https://www.pascalcoin.org/)
· Unlimited and free pseudo-PASAs based on layer-2 in the next version release.
“PascalCoin is still centralized after the release of RandomHash”
Did the implementation of RandomHash from version 4 live up to its promise?
The official goals of RandomHash were as follow:
(1) Implement a GPU & ASIC resistant hash algorithm
(2) Eliminate dual mining
The two goals above were achieved by every possible measure.
Yet a mining pool, Nanopool, was able to regain its hash majority after a significant but a temporary dip.
The official conclusion is that, from a probabilistic viewpoint, solo miners are more profitable than pool miners. However, pool mining is enticing for solo miners who 1) have limited hardware as it ensures a steady income instead of highly profitable but probabilistic income via solo mining, and 2) who prefer convenient software and/or GUI.
What is the next step, then? While the barrier of entry for solo miners has successfully been put down, additional work needs to be done. The PascalCoin team and the community are earnestly investigating additional steps to improve mining decentralization with respect to pool mining specifically to add on top of RandomHash’s successful elimination of GPU, ASIC, and dual-mining dominance.
It is likely that the PascalCoin community will promote the following two initiatives in the near future:
(1) Establish a community-driven, nonprofit mining pool with attractive incentives.
(2) Optimize RHMiner, PascalCoin’s official solo mining software, for performance upgrades.
A single pool dominance is likely short lived once more options emerge for individual CPU miners who want to avoid solo mining for whatever reason(s).
Let us use Bitcoin as an example. Bitcoin mining is dominated by ASICs and mining pools but no single pool is – at the time of this writing – even close on obtaining the hash majority. With CPU solo mining being a feasible option in conjunction with ASIC and GPU mining eradication with RandomHash, the future hash rate distribution of PascalCoin would be far more promising than Bitcoin’s hash rate distribution.
PascalCoin is the Unicorn Cryptocurrency
If you’ve read this far, let’s cut straight to the point: PascalCoin IS the unicorn cryptocurrency.
It is worth noting that PascalCoin is still a young cryptocurrency as it was launched at the end of 2016. This means that many features are still work in progress such as zn-SNARKs, smart contracts, and pool decentralization to name few. However, it appears that all of the unicorn criteria are within PascalCoin’s reach once PascalCoin’s technical roadmap is mostly completed.
Based on this expository on PascalCoin’s technology, there is every reason to believe that PascalCoin is the unicorn cryptocurrency. PascalCoin also solves two fundamental blockchain problems beyond the unicorn criteria that were previously considered unsolvable: blockchain size and simple address system. The SafeBox pushes PascalCoin to the forefront of cryptocurrency zeitgeist since it is a superior solution compared to UTXO, Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), Block Lattice, Tangle, and any other blockchain innovations.


THE UNICORN

Author: Tyler Swob
submitted by Kosass to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Transcript of Open Developer Meeting in Discord - 7/19/2019

[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hey everyone. The channel is now open for the dev meeting.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 3:58 PM
Hi
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Hi all!
JerozLast Friday at 3:59 PM
:wave:
TronLast Friday at 3:59 PM
Topics: Algo stuff - x22rc, Ownership token for Restricted Assets and Assets.
JerozLast Friday at 4:00 PM
@Milo is also here from coinrequest.
MiloLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Hi :thumbsup:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:00 PM
welcome, @Milo
TronLast Friday at 4:00 PM
Great.
@Milo Was there PRs for Android and iOS?
MiloLast Friday at 4:01 PM
Yes, I've made a video. Give me a second I'll share it asap.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
I missed the iOS one.
MiloLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Well its 1 video, but meant for all.
JerozLast Friday at 4:02 PM
Ah, there's an issue but no pull request (yet?)
https://github.com/RavenProject/ravenwallet-ios/issues/115
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:03 PM
nice @Milo
MiloLast Friday at 4:04 PM
Can it be that I have no video post rights?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
In discord?
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
yes?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:05 PM
just a link?
JerozLast Friday at 4:05 PM
Standard version has a file limit afaik
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:05 PM
try now
gave permissions
MiloLast Friday at 4:05 PM
it's not published yet on Youtube, since I didn't knew when it would be published in the wallets
file too big. Hold on i'll put it on youtube and set it on private
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:06 PM
no worries ipfs it...:yum:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:06 PM
ok, just send link when you can
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:07 PM
So guys. We released Ravencoin v2.4.0!
JerozLast Friday at 4:08 PM
If you like the code. Go update them nodes! :smiley:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:08 PM
We are recommending that you are upgrading to it. It fixes a couple bugs in the code base inherited from bitcoin!
MiloLast Friday at 4:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t\_g7NpFXm6g&feature=youtu.be
sorry for the hold up
YouTube
Coin Request
Raven dev Gemiddeld
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:09 PM
thanks short and sweet!!
KAwARLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Is coin request live on the android wallet?
TronLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Nice video.
It isn't in the Play Store yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:10 PM
Well, this is the first time in a while where we have this many devs online. What questions do y'all have?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:11 PM
Algo questions?
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:11 PM
sure
KAwARLast Friday at 4:11 PM
KK
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:12 PM
what are the proposed 22 algos in x22r? i could only find the original 16 plus 5 on x21.
TronLast Friday at 4:12 PM
Likely the 5 from x21 and find one more.
We need to make sure they're all similar in time profile.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:14 PM
should we bother fixing a asic-problem that we dont know exists for sure or not?
TronLast Friday at 4:14 PM
That's the 170 million dollar question.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:14 PM
I would prefer to be proactive not reactive.
imo
JerozLast Friday at 4:14 PM
same
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
RIPEMD160 is a golden oldie but not sure on hash speed compared to the others.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
in my mind we should focus on the restricted messaging etc
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:15 PM
probably won't know if the action was needed until after you take the action
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:15 PM
we are at risk of being interventionistas
acting under opacity
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
Needs to spit out at least 256 bit. Preferably 512 bit.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:15 PM
ok
TronLast Friday at 4:15 PM
If it isn't 512 bit, it'll cause some extra headache for the GPU mining software.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:16 PM
i seek to avoid iatrogenics
TronLast Friday at 4:16 PM
Similar to the early problems when all the algos except the first one were built for 64-bytes (512-bit) inputs.
Had to look that one up. TIL iatrogenics
JerozLast Friday at 4:17 PM
I have to google most of @liqdmetal's vocabulary :smile:
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:17 PM
@Tron tldr: basically the unseen, unintended negative side effects of the asic "cure"
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:18 PM
10 dolla word
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:19 PM
we need a really strong case to intervene in what has been created.
TronLast Friday at 4:19 PM
I agree. I'm less concerned with the technical risk than I am the potential split risk experienced multiple times by Monero.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:20 PM
tron do you agree that forking the ravencoin chain presents unique risks compared to other chains that aren't hosting assets?
JerozLast Friday at 4:21 PM
Yes, if you fork, you need to figure out for each asset which one you want to support.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:21 PM
yeah. and the asset issuer could have a chain preference
TronLast Friday at 4:22 PM
@Sevvy (y rvn pmp?) Sure. Although, I'd expect that the asset issuers will be honor the assets on the dominant chain. Bigger concern is the branding confusion of multiple forks. See Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV for an example. We know they're different, but do non-crypto folks?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:22 PM
I thought that the take-away from the recently published analyses and discussions was that ASICs for RVN may be active, but if so then they are being not much more effective than GPUs.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:22 PM
agreed on all accounts there tron
TronLast Friday at 4:23 PM
I'm not yet convinced ASICs are on the network.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:23 PM
It would be better to damage an asic builder by forking after they made major expenses. Creating for them the type of deficit that could be negated by just buying instead of mining. Asic existence should be 100 percent confirmed before fork.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:23 PM
170million dollar question is right.lol
TronLast Friday at 4:24 PM
I've had someone offer to connect me to the folks at Fusion Silicon.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:25 PM
yes. and if they are active on the network they are not particularly good ASICs
which makes it a moot point probably
TronLast Friday at 4:26 PM
The difficult part of this problem is that by the time everyone agrees that ASICs are problematic on the network, then voting the option in is likely no longer an option.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
yes. part of me wonders if we would say "okay, the clock on the asic countdown is reset by this new algo. but now the race is on"
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:26 PM
There are always risks when making a change that will fork the network. We want wait to long though, as tron said. It wont be a voting change. it will be a mandatory change at a block number.
Sevvy (y rvn pmp?)Last Friday at 4:26 PM
acknowledge the inevitable
MiloLast Friday at 4:27 PM
I had just a small question from my side. When do you think the android version would be published, and do you maybe have a time-frame for the others?
TronLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Quick poll. How would everyone here feel about a BIP9 option - separate from the new features that can be voted in?
KAwARLast Friday at 4:27 PM
Maybe voting should not be a strictly blockchain vote. A republic and a democratic voice?
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:27 PM
@Milo We can try and get a beta out next week, and publish soon after that.
MiloLast Friday at 4:28 PM
@[Dev-Happy] Blondfrogs :thumbsup::slight_smile:
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:28 PM
BIP9 preemptive vote. I like it.
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The advantage to a BIP9 vote is that it puts the miners and mining pools at a clear majority before activation.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Centralisation is inevitable unless we decide to resist it. ASIC's are market based and know the risks and rewards possible. A key step in resisting is sending a message. An algo change to increase asic resistance is imho a strong message. A BIP9 vote now would also be an indicator of bad actors early....
TronLast Friday at 4:30 PM
The disadvantage is that it may not pass if the will isn't there.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:30 PM
Before assets are on main net and cause additional issues.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:31 PM
I am not schooled in coding to have an educated voice. I only understand social problems and how it affects the economy.
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:31 PM
All are equal on RVN
TronLast Friday at 4:31 PM
It is primarily a social problem. The tech change is less risky and is easier than the social.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:32 PM
All can have a share....people who want more of a share however pay for the privilege and associated risks.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:33 PM
Assets and exchange listings need to be consistent and secure.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:36 PM
I'm still not entirely clear on what the overall goal to the algo change is? Is it just to brick the supposed ASICs (unknown 45%) which could still be FPGAs as seen from the recent block analysis posted in the nest. Is the goal to never let ASICs on? Is it to brick FPGAs ultimately. Are we making Raven strictly GPU only? I'm still unclear
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:37 PM
What about the future issue of ASICs returning after a BIP9 fork "soon"? Are all following the WP as a community? i.e asic resistant or are we prepared to change that to asic resistant for early coin emission. Ideally we should plan for the future. Could the community make a statement that no future algo changes will be required to incentivise future public asic manufacturers?
Lol. Same question @brutoid
brutoidLast Friday at 4:37 PM
Haha it is
You mind-beamed me!
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:38 PM
The is up to the community.
Currently, the feel seems like the community is anti asic forever.
The main issue is getting people to upgrade.
KAwARLast Friday at 4:38 PM
Clarity is important. Otherwise we are attacking windmills like Don Quixote.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:39 PM
I'm not getting the feeling of community ASIC hate if the last few weeks of discussion are anything to go by?
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 4:39 PM
A unilateral non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height is a serious thing, but anti-ASIC has been part of the RVN philosophy since the whitepaper and is therefore appropriate for that purpose.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:39 PM
We can use the latest release as an example. It was a non forking release, announced for 2 weeks. and only ~30% of the network has upgraded.
TronLast Friday at 4:39 PM
@Hans_Schmidt Well said.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:40 PM
I'm not concerned about a "asic hardware problem" so much as I believe it more likely what we are seeing is several big fish miners (perhaps a single really big fish). For now I recommend standing pat on x16r. In the future I can see an algo upgrade fork to keep the algo up to date. If we start fighting against dedicated x16r hashing machines designed and built to secure our network we are more likely to go down in flames. The custom SHA256 computers that make the bitcoin the most secure network in existence are a big part of that security. If some party has made an asic that performs up to par or better than FPGA or GPU on x16r, that is a positive for this network, a step towards SHA256 security levels. It is too bad the community is in the dark regarding their developments. Therefore I think the community has to clarify its stance towards algorithm changes. I prefer a policy that will encourage the development of mining software, bitstreams and hardware by as many parties as possible. The imminent threat of ALGO fork screws the incentive up for developers.
JerozLast Friday at 4:40 PM
@brutoid the vocal ones are lenient towards asics, but the outcome of the 600+ votes seemed pretty clear.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:40 PM
This is my confusion
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
More hashes are only better if the cost goes up proportionally. Machines that do more hashes for less $ doesn't secure the network more, and trends towards centralization.
JerozLast Friday at 4:41 PM
I would argue for polling ever so often as it certainly will evolve dynamically with the state of crypto over time.
TronLast Friday at 4:41 PM
Measure security in two dimensions. Distribution, and $/hash.
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:41 PM
and volume of hash
traysiLast Friday at 4:42 PM
45% of the hashrate going to one party is unhealthy, and standing pat on x16r just keeps that 45% where it is.
TronLast Friday at 4:42 PM
Volume doesn't matter if the cost goes down. For example, lets say software shows up that does 1000x better than the software from yesterday, and everyone moves to it. That does not add security. Even if the "difficulty" and embedded hashes took 1000x more attempts to find.
brutoidLast Friday at 4:42 PM
My issue is defintely centralization of hash and not so much what machine is doing it. I mine with both GPU and FPGA. Of course, the FPGAs are not on raven
TJayLast Friday at 4:44 PM
easy solution is just to replace a few of 16 current hash functions, without messing with x21r or whatever new shit
TronLast Friday at 4:44 PM
How do folks here feel about allowing CPUs back in the game?
traysiLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern with CPUs
brutoidLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Botnets is my concern
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:44 PM
Yes please.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:44 PM
the poll votes seem not very security conscious. More of day miners chasing profits. I love them bless! Imho the future is bright for raven, however these issues if not sorted out now will bite hard long term when asset are on the chain and gpu miners are long gone.....
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
How has the testing of restricted assets been on the test net?
liqdmetalLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Agreed. I dont think x16r is obsolete like that yet however
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab not enough testing at the moment.
HedgerLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Yes, how is the Testing going?
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Like randomX or how are cpus going to be back in the game?
TronLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab Just getting started at testing at the surface level (RPC calls), and fixing as we go.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
And or any updates on the review of dividend code created by the community
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:45 PM
if the amount of hash the unknown pool has is fixed as standarderror indicated then waiting for the community of FPGAers to get onto raven might be advantageous if the fork doesn't hurt FPGAs.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:45 PM
Can't rememeber who was on it
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:45 PM
@Zaab But we are working on it...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:46 PM
more hash for votes
JerozLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Maldon is, @Zaab
TronLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab There are unit tests and functional tests already, but we'd like more.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 4:46 PM
@Zaab Dividend code is currently adding test cases for better security. Should have more update on that next meeting
KAwARLast Friday at 4:46 PM
Absolute democracy seems to resemble anarchy or at least civil war. In EVE online they have a type of community voice that get voted in by the community.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:46 PM
No worries was just curious if it was going as planned or significant issues were being found
Obviously some hiccups are expected
More testing is always better!
TronLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Who in here is up for a good civil war? :wink:
ZaabLast Friday at 4:47 PM
Tron v Bruce. Celebrity fight night with proceeds to go to the RVN dev fund
SpyderDevLast Friday at 4:48 PM
Cagefight or mudpit?
JerozLast Friday at 4:48 PM
talking about dev funds..... :wink:
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 4:49 PM
and there goes the conversation....
KAwARLast Friday at 4:49 PM
I am trying to be serious...
ZaabLast Friday at 4:49 PM
Sorry back to the ascii topic!
traysiLast Friday at 4:49 PM
@Tron What do we need in order to make progress toward a decision on the algo? Is there a plan or a roadmap of sorts to get us some certainty about what we're going to do?
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:50 PM
Could we have 3 no BIP9 votes? No1 Friendly to asics, retain status quo. No2 change to x17r minimal changes etc, with no additional future PoW/algo upgrades. No3. Full Asic resistance x22r and see what happens...
:thonk~1:
Sounds messy....
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Right now we're in research mode. We're building CNv4 so we can run some metrics. If that goes well, we can put together x22rc and see how it performs. It will likely gore everyone's ox. CPUs can play, GPUs work, but aren't dominant. ASICs VERY difficult, and FPGAs will have a tough time.
ZaabLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Yeah i feel like the results would be unreliable
TronLast Friday at 4:51 PM
Is this good, or do we lose everyone's vote?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Fpga will be dead
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
why isn;t a simple XOR or something on the table?
ZaabLast Friday at 4:52 PM
The multiple bip9 that is
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:52 PM
something asic breaking but doesn't greatly complicate ongoing efforts for FPGA being my point.
justinjjaLast Friday at 4:52 PM
How are you going to vote for x22rc?
Because if by hashrate that wouldn't pass.
traysiLast Friday at 4:52 PM
Personally I like the idea of x22rc but I'd want to investigate the botnet threat if CPUs are allowed back in.
TronLast Friday at 4:52 PM
XOR is on the table, and was listed in my Medium post. But, the social risk of chain split remains, for very little gain.
traysiLast Friday at 4:53 PM
@Lokar -=Kai=- A small change means that whoever has 45% can probably quickly adapt.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Research sounds good. x22rc could be reduce to x22r for simplicity...
TronLast Friday at 4:53 PM
x22r is a viable option. No CNv4.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:53 PM
Don't know how much time we have to play with though...
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:53 PM
if they have FPGAs yes if they have ASIC then not so much, but I guess that gets to the point, what exactly are we trying to remove from the network?
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:54 PM
Guys my name is Arsen and we designed x16r fpga on bcus. Just about to release it to the public. I am buzzdaves partner.
Cryptonight
Will kill us
But agreed
Asic is possible on x16r
And you dont need 256 core
Cores
traysiLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hi Arsen. Are you saying CN will kill "us" meaning RVN, or meaning FPGA?
JerozLast Friday at 4:55 PM
This is what im afraid of ^ an algo change killing FPGA as I have the feeling there is a big fpga community working on this
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Fpgas ))
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:55 PM
I am also about to release X16R for CVP13 + BCU1525 FPGA's. I'm open to algo changes but I really don't believe in CPU mining because of botnets. Any CNv4 shifts 100% to CPU mining, even if it is only 1 of the 22 functions.
Lokar -=Kai=-Last Friday at 4:55 PM
namely FPGAs that aren;t memory equipped
like fast mem
not ddr
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:55 PM
Hbm non hbm
Cryptonight
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:56 PM
Right now with both Buzzdave/Altered Silicon and myself (Zetheron) about to release X16R for FPGA's, then the 45% miner's share will decrease to 39% or less.
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
Will be dead for fpga
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 4:56 PM
sound so x22r is fpga "friendly" ... more so than asic anyway...
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:56 PM
But a change must be planned
X16r is no way possible to avoid asics
TJayLast Friday at 4:56 PM
@LSJI07 - MBIT I would say less friendly...
whitefire990Last Friday at 4:57 PM
As I mentioned in thenest discussion, asic resistance increases with the square of the number of functions, so X21R is more asic resistant than X16R, but both are pretty resistant
PlayHardLast Friday at 4:58 PM
Yeah more algos make it heavier on ASIC
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 4:58 PM
My interpretation of the whitepaper was that we used x16r as it was brand new (thus ASIC resistant), and that was to ensure a fair launch... We've launched... I don't like the idea of constantly forking to avoid the inevitable ASICs.
x16r was a great "experiment" before we had any exchange listings... that ship has sailed though... not sure about all these x22rs lmnop changes
KAwARLast Friday at 5:00 PM
I believe that it is easier to change the direction of a bicycle than an oil tanker. We feel more like a train. We should lay out new tracks and test on them and find benefits that are acceptable to everyone except train robbers. Then open the new train station with no contentious feelings except a silently disgruntled minority group. ???
Hans_SchmidtLast Friday at 5:01 PM
The most productive action the community can do now re ASICs is to voice support for the devs to make a non-BIP9 change at a chosen block height if/when the need is clear. That removes the pressure to act rashly to avoid voting problems.
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:01 PM
Thats why im proposing to fork at least once to a more asic resistant algo (but FPGA "friendly/possible"), with the proviso ideally that no more PoW algo forks are require to provide future ASICs some opportunity to innovate with silicon and efficiency.
TJayLast Friday at 5:01 PM
folks should take into account, that high end FPGAs like BCU1525 on x16r can't beat even previous gen GPUs (Pascal) in terms of hash cost. so they aren't a threat to miners community
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
A proper change
Requires proper research
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
Just so I'm clear here, we are trying to boot ASICS, don't want CPUs because of Botnets, and are GPU and FPGA friendly right?
PlayHardLast Friday at 5:02 PM
It is not a quick one day process
eyz (Silence)Last Friday at 5:02 PM
If there is a bip9 vote there needs to be a clear explanation as I feel most in the community don't understand exactly what we are trying to fix
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt I like that route. It has some game theoretics. It gives time for miners to adapt. It is only used if needed. It reduces the likelihood of ASICs dominating the network, or even being built.
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Hey guys. great convo. We are of course looking to do the best thing for the community and miner. We are going to be signing off here though.
justinjjaLast Friday at 5:03 PM
TJay that comes down to power cost.
If your paying 4c/kw gpus all the way.
But if your a home miner in europe an fpga is your only chance
LSJI07 - MBITLast Friday at 5:03 PM
@Hans_Schmidt How do we decide the block limit and when sufficient evidence is available? I would say we have had much compelling information to date...
[Dev-Happy] BlondfrogsLast Friday at 5:03 PM
Thanks for participating. and keep up the good work :smiley:
Have a good weekend.
CAWWWW
TronLast Friday at 5:03 PM
I haven't seen any compelling evidence of ASICs - yet.
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:03 PM
:v:
JerozLast Friday at 5:04 PM
I suggest to continue discussion in #development and #thenest :smiley:
thanks all!
TronLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Cheers everyone!
KAwARLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Agree with Hans.
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
thanks Tron
Pho3nix Monk3yLast Friday at 5:04 PM
Ending here. continue in Nest if wanted
DirkDiggler (Citadel Architect)Last Friday at 5:04 PM
I am waiting for compelling evidence myself.
submitted by mrderrik to Ravencoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

So I finally gave Honeyminer a try. (my personal semi-review)

This review was last updated 11-30-18
When I first was interested in trying this program I couldn't find anything about it. it seems a lot of people were too scared to try it since their is like no information about it other then from the web page itself. to be honest I was a bit scared to try it. I've tried many other software of this kind, on a "test" machine I'm not afraid to lose on a secondary network and router... incase its a scam or gonna give me a virus and I suggest anyone installing mining software do the same as a rule of thumb. please keep in mind the software is still relatively new and they are working to improve it still. They seem to be hiring as well if your interested in helping them grow by working for them look near the bottom for their contact e-mail. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________
This review is for the windows version of Honyminer Because its still relatively new I knew could go one of two ways "sacm software" like most every mobile mining app or even quite a few desktop ones - Or legit. I'm glad to say after using it for a month it seems legit. I was able to withdraw from it no problem. If your system is really crappy It might not work that well on your computer or mining rig. There are no ads and the program doesn't seem to disrupt any day to day activity at least not on my main system, however you can of course expect increased heat production of your system as with any mining software, adequate cooling is important in mining. Anyways Honyminer is as close to an easy one click mining software as I have come. they seem to be making a "pro" version too for more hardcore miners. They do take a fee which is to be expected *look near the bottom for fee information\* but that fee goes down significantly if you have multiple GPU's mining.. The good thing about it for me was it let me kind of set my rig to "autopilot" so to speak. If you wish to see the H/s numbers in real time, go to you settings and view the "expert logs" which will also tell what coin is being mined at the time ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Pros
Pro and or con (depending on how you look at it)
Cons:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
COMPATIBILITY: (sorry it keeps adding asterisks to the card model for no reason)
WORKED ON: every nvidia card tested so far with card models dating back from 20014 to now..
Worked on some surprising low end and or old CPU and GPUs. like the
AMD Radeon R9 380 card in addition to a AMD Athlon II X3 450 Processor and it mines just fine.. of course that processor doesn't make much on its own lol.. but thats an extra 2 or 3 cents per day by itself. I've also tested it with an i3, i2 Most AMD cards worked but I ran into issues with a few so maybe it's easier for me to just tell you what did not work.
DID NOT WORK ON:
--- any of the AMD ATI Radeon HD 4250's tested so far (2) that particular card It didn't work at all for mining like never enabled the gpu but the cpu on that machine did work however it would generate an "error" on start up but otherwise did not disrupt the mining on that system except if I turned on idle earning mode, I would get a bunch of errors as it was trying to access the GPU. we need the functionality to enable or disable hardware individually I think. (errors or no errors it just seems like a good thing to have.)
OR a system that had both a AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and a AMD A8-7650K Radeon R7, (4C+6G) which surprised me considering some of the things that did work lol... but I think it might just might be that one system, but either way can't vouch that it will work. That system was pre-built and wont allow the parts to be changed or easily removed to be worth the effort since I have to use it for other things so unfortunately I can't test these on another mainboard at least not with wasting some time, money and patients that Id rather dedicate elsewhere for now.
I had some issues using one RX Vega 56 card but i think it's was just that card because another one did work just fine.________________________________________________________________________
FEES W/ comparison to nicehash
I'm not sure if this post will be helpful to anyone looking into this software or anyone whos looking to try a different mining software but if it dose great.
-- nicehash charges the following fees as far as "selling/mining" or withdrawing.
Payouts for balances less than 0.1 to external wallet 5%
Payouts for balances greater than or equal to 0.1 BTC to external wallet 3%
Payouts for balances greater than or equal to 0.001 BTC to NiceHash wallet 2%
Withdrawal fees from NiceHash wallet
Withdrawals from NiceHash wallet are subjected to the withdrawal fee, which depends on the withdrawn amount and withdrawal option.
WITHDRAWAL OPTION AMOUNT TO WITHDRAW FEE Any BTC wallet From 0.002 (min) to 0.05 BTC 0.0001 BTC
Any BTC wallet More than 0.05 BTC 0.2% of withdrawn amount
Coinbase More than 0.001 BTC FREE - No fee. but they also say Minimum Coinbase withdrawal limit is adjusted dynamically according to the API overload._____________________________________________________________________________
honyminer fees are based on number of GPU's working.
8% for 1 GPU or for 2 GPUs or more the fee is 2.5%.
The only withdrawal fee is the standard BTC transaction fee that bitcoin charges and it doesn't go to honyminer. When they add the other withdrawal functions that fee cam be avoided I suppose.
_________________________
Earnings: in comparison to nicehash
Update: sometimes software / test networks will give a view that can be off + or - a few percent compared to actual. A lot of different things can affect your earnings including where you are located in the world, I'm not sure how many of you uses more than one mining software day to day , ISP issues, crypto price fluctuation, updates to fee's, and inaccuracies in test software/networks can affect results. but I go back and forth between different ones from time to time and I think that's good practice to keep options open. I notice that honey miner seems to do better for me at night-time and early morning/afternoon is when it has the most trouble raking in the crypto's
That said I've been trying to test to see how this compares to nice hash earnings, with two of my buddies. So this is an average between the 3 of our profits vs loss compared to nice hash, I'm using a two 10 GPU/ 3 cpu setups, while one of my buddies is using two 1 gpu, 2 cpu setups and the other is using two 30 gpu mini farm's. We each have 2 networks each located relatively close by *less than .5 mile the furthest one* one with honyminer running and the other with nice hash and we are looking over 24 hour periods When all three of us have the results for one day, we average our results together. In all we will be looking over a 14 day period. UPDATE: the results below were done well long before the latest update to the software so I do not know if they have changed, Id have to do another round or perhaps some from the community could give me their results and save me a bit of work. I'm not sure when Id have the time to dig into it again. Sorry that it took me so long before I could get on here to post the results of the last few days of the tests.
Seem to be a bit smaller then nicehash at times and higher at other times. it seems to for me at least payquicker and it gets deposited in my nicehash account sooner than I expected.
hopefully when they let up pick which coin to mine on our own it may help somewhat, and any of you who want to move smaller volume will probably benefit when they add the functionality to withdraw other coin/usd.
anyways when their autopilot system works it works great but when it doesn't it's just "okay" for lack of a better word...
_____________________________________________________
Contact: they have a contact us part on their webpage and they also have a reddit page which I was made aware of from contacting them https://www.reddit.com/HoneyMine
Careers: If anyone is interested in working for them the job listings at the time of this typing were for Senior Java Developer(s) and Customer Service Representative(s) the email listed is [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]). id suggest you check their site for the requirements I just added this part to the review as a courtesy if anyone's interested its not meant to be a focus of it. But I know we have some really talented people on reddit who care about the crypto world passionately so id rather give honyminer a chance to have some of those sort on their team since it might help improve the software faster for the end users.. if that makes sense.
_________________________________________________________
UPDATE: If a question reminds me I left out something I think should have mentioned Ill try to add it here so ppl don't have to scroll all over the place.. I don't write many reviews (for anything) so I don't know if this one was any good or not but I hope it was okay.. and I'm still a new reddit user relatively. I just wanted to make this review mainly because there is next to no information on honyminer when I looked for it and maybe it can help anyone whos interested in it.
browolf2 asked Is it basically like nicehash then? :
A: In a way, its like nice hash that its cloud based, but you get paid not just when your pool completes an order. there are no "buyers" only "sellers" if you look at it that way...I hope I'm wording this the right way.. It's just straight up mining and they take their fee but compared to nicehash the fees for "mining" are different
karl0525 asked: do you know if we can contact the honeyminer dev team and see if they will communicate here on Reddit. Might give them some good ideas what us miners are looking for? Worth a try maybe? Thanks:
A: I submitted a question to their "contact us" part of their webpage and I got a reply from them, this is the message I received below:
Thank you for writing in and for your interest in Honeyminer. We always welcome feedback and suggestions from our users. We are currently planning on expanding our online and social media presence.
Please check our our Reddit page: https://www.reddit.com/HoneyMine
submitted by Joe_Cow to gpumining [link] [comments]

Cgminer Scrypt Mining Tuning (Overclocking) GPU Raise Hashrate Tutorial (Litecoin, Feathercoin, etc) How to start BITCOIN mining using GPU or CPU in 2020 ... Legit Free Bitcoin Mining CPU+gpu  Free Bitcoin Miner ... First Day Mining Bitcoin! GTX 1070 GPU - YouTube How To Increase Your GPU's Mining Hash Rate For Free ...

To activate profit switching on a previously disabled GPU or CPU, you must first perform a complete benchmark. After the benchmark is over, you must make sure you select anything different than "none" in the miners list. GPUs that have the mining algorithm set to "none" will NOT be used for profit switching. What computer specifications do you recommend for BetterHash? Any 64-bit PC is good ... To assess a GPU’s ability to mine Bitcoin, you need to understand hash rates. When mining Bitcoin or any other Proof of Work (PoW) blockchain, your GPU has to perform complex calculations. Each calculation is a hash. A hash rate is a metric to measure the number of hashes a GPU (or any other processor) can complete in a window of time, often ... Nowadays all serious Bitcoin mining is performed on dedicated Bitcoin mining hardware ASICs, usually in thermally-regulated data-centers with low-cost electricity. Don’t Get Confused. There is Bitcoin mining hardware, which mines bitcoins. There are also Bitcoin hardware wallets like the Ledger Nano X, which secure bitcoins. Quick Tip. Mining is not the fastest way to get bitcoins. Buying ... Best GPU for mining. When it comes to building a dedicated mining GPU rig and choosing the GPUs, there are no needs for a GPU to have high frame rates when gaming, since the GPU will not be used for gaming. The best GPU for mining would be the one that reaches ROI (return of investment) first. Of course, this does not only depend on the daily ... Bitcoin Gold Mining Pool, BTG Pool, ZHash.pro Mining Pool ... No registration required. Only GPU miners are supported. Please see below for pool features and fees. POOL STATS CONNECT. Pool Information & Features Reliable and transparent mining solutions. Connect now! DISCORD CHAT LIVE CHAT. Bitcoin Gold Pool Hashrate. 577.73 Sol/s Pool Current Hash Rate (Average: ...) Miners 3. Workers 10 ...

[index] [26835] [46627] [49222] [50163] [17521] [35421] [41219] [50923] [25946] [7167]

Cgminer Scrypt Mining Tuning (Overclocking) GPU Raise Hashrate Tutorial (Litecoin, Feathercoin, etc)

https://bit.ly/2uehZf3 https://bit.ly/2BjoUa7 https://bit.ly/2P1tNsD https://bit.ly/2UaAmMb bitcoin sell or buy contact us https://t.me/onlinetrust https://f... Hello everyone, this tutorial is to show you how to tune your GPU to get a better hash rate. Overclocking for scrypt mining is more complex than bitcoin (rather than just increasing your engine ... Nvidia P106-100 Dedicated Mining Card MSI & Galaxy Unboxing & Benchmarks Ethereum & Zcash Other good Nvidia cards for mining: (most are on pre-order) GTX 107... First Day Mining Bitcoin in 2018 and I gotta say it was really easy to start. I found a computer for a 1,000 bucks with a Nvidia GTX 1070 GPU which is one of... In this video i can show you that how to Start Bitcoin Mining Using GPU or CPU in 2020. Nicehash miner is the easiest way to start mining, also you don't nee...

#