It's a large commercial building and contract has power included. Plus it's unmetered. To top it all, I have very limited power available as you can see above list maxed out my electrical consumption. So it's not necessarily a giant farm in hiding.
Sounds like a dream for a Bitcoin enthusiast. Wonder if you could bring in an electrician to add another panel or two and expand your "free" power (although that may require a transformer upgrade, which can be pricey). By terms of my contract all electrical work has to be approved by building management, which will give away my hunger for power  Sometimes its even worse than that. In some places with unmetered service, any new electrical work (permit) will require you to put in a meter In your situation (with which I have some familiarity) you don't really have free power. You have $/month of fixed subsidy (the value of your power usage at full load). The power is actually very expensive to you in marginal cost, because you can't get more at any price. My opinion is to sit tight and wait for better deals, and just keep going with the S1s. I do not believe the S2 is worth the price. Make your own decisions though. |
|
|
|
Relaunch with a GPU algorithm unless a Myriadcoin style PoW setup can be achieved. Name the last successful CPU only coin...it doesn't exist (no, Bitcoin doesn't count).
There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%. It gets rapidly worse from there. If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts. Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter. |
|
|
|
Is BTC6.5 bad investment for batch 3?
I estimate 1T currently making 0.065 means 100 days to breakeven before difficulty increase or electricity costs. No go. S1 @ 0.831 for 180G makes 0.0125 or 67 days to breakeven. Risky too but possible. I have free power. Still not worth? With free power you definitely want to go with S1s instead of S2s. The biggest advantage of S2s is lower power usage at a much higher price per hash. |
|
|
|
You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.
Thank you for the kind words. I agree with you that the quality of the team is really important. When I evaluate any project that's the number one thing I look for. I'm very pleased with the quality of the team that has come together around this coin. |
|
|
|
I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.
Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.
Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.
What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we can fix this in a way that makes nearly everyone happy and does minimal damage, but if not, then a new coin is certainly possible. |
|
|
|
+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?
The existing block chain would not change, of course. What would happen is that if you were using the new version of the wallet, the old coins would be displayed using a value half as large as what is actually in the block chain. New coins would be displayed using their actual value. When the old coins are moved, the miner would adjust their value on the block chain to be new coins. So in a sense, the fix is mostly cosmetic. |
|
|
|
I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency
It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin. The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd. If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins. As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct. |
|
|
|
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.
No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly. Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each. Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is. Oh here we go........ I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain. I already said you made valid points. It was a screw up, and fixing it can't be done in a perfect way. We're trying to choose the least harmful fix. They all have down sides. |
|
|
|
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.
No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly. Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each. Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is. |
|
|
|
Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems. Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin? This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price. Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small? Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week. This was always a bug, and should be treated as such. |
|
|
|
how many coins are out already? how do i tell i synched in?
There are approximately 150k coins. There will likely be a "reverse stock split" turning these into 75k "new" coins at some point, because the mining reward is currently twice what is intended. Syncing the daemon is currently pretty fast as there isn't much of a block chain. Type refresh in the wallet to sync it. |
|
|
|
Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems. Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin? You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin. If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe. To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen. |
|
|
|
Dude I like your posts too - maybe I'm having a bad day - but this pool is shrinking and I'm not surprised...
I don't use this pool much any more so I'm not closely following it, but if the pool is shrinking that is likely due to bad luck. Idiots chase the luck around. They will even chase the luck to pools with higher fees. It makes no sense, but people do it. Nothing you can ever do about that (other than reprogram human psychology), and it has very little to do with the payout method. |
|
|
|
I saw someone the other day with 60TH/s on here. He linked his payout address. 0% donation. 0%!!!
If I were running a pool I would give large miners a negative fee (i.e. a rebate) |
|
|
|
so i create a wallet via password
if i create a new wallet. if i set the same password. would this still be the same wallet generated?
No the password is just for keeping the wallet safe. You can even use no password (not recommended). Each generated wallet is different. You can copy the wallet files if you want the same wallet somewhere else. |
|
|
|
The cost of the miner in BTC goes down as the price of BTC goes up. That's why it helps ROI. On batch 2 the BTC price was dropping during the sale period so the ROI got worse the longer you waited to buy.
people need to stop looking at it this way. it just doesn't make sense. the machine mines btc not fiat. You are confused. What I'm saying is that the machine is priced at $3200 on the web site. If you were to order it today at a USD/BTC price of about $500, you would pay about 6.4 BTC. If USD/BTC goes up to $1000 you will pay 3.2 BTC. Paying 3.2 BTC is much better than paying 6.4 BTC. I paid 5.5 BTC for batch 2. Others who ordered later paid a lot more (in BTC). I may ROI if I'm lucky and everything goes perfectly. They won't. |
|
|
|
No the eventual total is still 18 million in a LONG time (many, many years off). In the short term the mining reward over time is being cut in half both prospectively and retrospectively.
I am probably mis-understanding this - are you saying our present wallet balances will be halved? Yeah that seems to be how the fix will be done, although the development team is still working out the details. Everyone equally, so no one is adversely effected. It is just that new coins will each be worth twice as much as old coins. The total outstanding circulation will be cut in half as well. Best to discuss this on the main thread though. |
|
|
|
No the eventual total is still 18 million in a LONG time (many, many years off). In the short term the mining reward over time is being cut in half both prospectively and retrospectively.
I am probably mis-understanding this - are you saying our present wallet balances will be halved? Yeah that seems to be how the fix will be done, although the development team is still working out the details. Everyone equally, so no one is adversely effected. It is just that new coins will each be worth twice as much as old coins. The total outstanding circulation will be cut in half as well. |
|
|
|
ROI is possible if BTC reach USD 850 and above.
Why not just buy BTC then? You'll make a better return.  The cost of the miner in BTC goes down as the price of BTC goes up. That's why it helps ROI. On batch 2 the BTC price was dropping during the sale period so the ROI got worse the longer you waited to buy. |
|
|
|
I want to buy 1000 moneo, PM me the BTC price. Thank
Trading thread is over here. It says Bitmonero BMR but that's the same thing (former name). Will be fixed there soon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
