This is looking interesting. 

I'm following along.

Nice additional information - especially the cross platform stuff.

I still can't stress enough how dangerous it can be though, and that private key (paper wallet) manipulation is for expert users. Think of what happens, for example, when the uninitiated, thinking the import process is taking too long, or that it isn't working at all, tries to abort! Goodbye private key coins. (And nobody think that the third party "cloud" software offering to do the job for you for free is free from their simply pirating your private key either.)

The average user needs to learn to do the process in a secure way on his or her own, and then if they want to send money to another wallet they have, they should do it the normal way. The everyday user should be instructed on the safest and easiest way to do things (and even then, things will go wrong), similar to what I was doing in the second half of the post you quoted but left out ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408268.msg10635714#msg10635714 ).

And "backing it up in a couple of places", at very least!!!! As you mention, storage media can and will fail!!! And, if you're backing up private keys too, that includes your private key storage media as well!!!! And this even means different physical locations!!! Imagine your home catches fire . . .  
 
Serious stuff that certainly needs standardization. Things are complicated enough as it is with cryptographic digital currencies, let alone we unduely complicate them more.

Best Practice ideas and instructions are not easy to come by. Thanks for contributing to that end.

I'll put this together into a nice simple and easy HOWTO on Asistec TI as soon as I possibly can - as you know, I'm very busy at the moment.

That is correct.

The private key is what you would use to create a paper wallet, and is a much more cumbersome, complicated and dangerous process that is only recommeded for expert users (since if done incorrectly you have a very good chance of losing your coins), and using 3rd party software to supposedly make that easier is even more dangerous.

Making your own wallet.dat backup is as easy and just as safe as (if not easier and safer than) any kind of backup possible - as long as you are sure to have multiple copies of your backups and that they are all off-line. You can also use several wallet.dat files. When backed up, they might look something like wallet001.dat, wallet002.dat, etc., and when you want to use one, take it to the DigiByte folder, rename it wallet.dat, and it'll be up and running once you've launched DigiByte Core. When finished, rename it with its backup name once again, and copy it to at least 3 off-line backup locations. Once that's done, the copy in the DigiByte folder should be deleted - I never leave an active wallet in the program folder (and NEVER use the "move" command: always copy first, and then delete once you've got confirmed good backups).

Is AidBit dead?

I'm not sure I understand your question. Could you be more specific? What do you mean by "steeled"? Are you asking if somehow there is a way for any one individual person, place or thing to somehow be exempt from public scrutiny and regulation? If that's case, the answer would obviously be "no", but, as I said, I'm not sure about your question, so if you could be a bit clearer . . .

Watching price, and holding my breath.

I'm not sure if it's not because it's like watching grass grow though. 


This sure would be a nice place to put in a floor . . .

Pallas,

Are you planning on adding myriad-groestl support in the future? If not, could you explain why not? Is it because your groestl kernel is already faster than the myriad-groestl?

Also, are you planning on putting your work on github? Again, if not, could you explain why not?

It seems to me that both are important ways to further your efforts and establish your reputation.

Best regards as always.

HR

A word to the wise: when your honest question is responded to with personal attacks, you've got all the answer you need.

Second word to the wise: if you're playing poker and you don't know who the patsy is, it's you.

And we’ve also got to tack on fixed hardware investment costs to that rough 200 SAT figure. I estimate that a low ball figure for that would be another 25% or so – roughly another 50 SAT. Then, people want to get paid for their time, and, obviously, there is time that goes into mining, like initial setup and maintenance. Add another 50 SAT. Early stage venture capital investments usually look for at least a 7.5x return on their investment, so that would take our base price up to 2,250 SAT. What happens then is that the early stage venture capitalists sell to late stage venture capitalists who look for something around 3 times investment – 6,750 SAT. Once we have a mature and proven product that qualifies as investment grade, “normal” investors begin to participate, and they expect to see at least a 10% annual return for investing in still relatively young and risky products, and that would take us to 17,500 SAT, which would still be substantially below DigiBytes’ intended target of 1000:1 with BTC. With today’s BTC pricing by the way, that would almost be a nickel, while the 1000:1 target would be a quarter, or 0.25 USD, the perfect micro-payment value that DGB should have by the time it becomes a widely accepted monetary unit used for micro-payments (and I forgot to mention fiat inflation - one of the main reasons for investing in crytographic digital currencies - which, over a 10 year period of time could cause the value of both BTC and DGB to skyrocket, leaving all my conservative estimates behind in the dust).

What happens in real life though is that, just like there is a lag time in the early stages in price reflecting what early investors with foresight envision, there is an eventual inflexion point where psychology inverts and investors 'suddenly' move beyond simplistic analysis and wake up to the long term price potential, and that's when future potential is suddenly "discounted" positively and price, instead of lagging, begins to surge well in advance of projected expectations. The long and the short of this is that, while it may take many years for DGB to actually become the operative micro-payment vehicle is intends to be, it may be priced as such years in advance of actually achieving that goal.

So, just for fun, I thought I'd pull out the calculator and drum up a low end "ballpark" figure, and, using the most conservative long term averaged estimate I think possible (which is to say that the real cost will most probably be much higher), in order to mine (create/bring into existance/produce) all the projected 21 billion DGB, the total electricity cost in USD terms will be roughly 10 million dollars. That, translated into satoshi, would be approximately 206 SAT - the lowest of the low ball figures. And that's only the electricity cost!

I think reasonable expectations are critical for everything we do. If we expect too much, we are likely disappointed. It we expect too little, we are also likely to be disappointed when we are not adequately prepared. When we have reasonable expectations we are not only prepared for reality's opportunities and possible eventualities, we are often pleasantly surprised.

At this stage, I think it's unreasonable to expect that people be buying and selling products with DGB as though it were a viable medium of exchange - it just doesn't have the wide scale adoption that is necessary for that kind of activity yet, and it may be some time before it does. Is that really an issue however? Was there ever an alt-coin developer who came out suggesting their coin would be a real functioning money right from day one? Obviously not. There are definitely phases involved in an alt-coin's existence, like the creation phase and the permanent usage phase as I mentioned here (with decline and death being other phases that the non-survivors will also face). Just like it would be unreasonable to expect to be able to mine once mining has finished, it's equally unreasonable to expect DGB to function like 'money' at such an early stage as this. Likewise, it's way too early for investors to even begin thinking about selling their holdings - the creation/investment phase has only just begun!

Reading recent posts regarding DGB's current value and what we speculate might be its real value, I got to thinking that, sometime in the future, maybe a year, maybe 5, certainly within 10, sooner or later, DigiByte will stop being an investment and become a medium of exchange. That means that the creation phase will end and the permanent usage phase will begin. Obviously, achieving this means an appropriately valued price as well. Continuing with the same logic, it's the original investors, which made the product possible, who take the lion’s share of the capital gain profits as price reaches for its long term potential.

The viable, and implemented, profitable product that is actively and widely used for the purpose it was designed for, rewards those who made it possible. And rightly so. What’s more, production costs are paid for first, before ever even considering profits. Have you ever done the calculations on what the production cost would be for a complete cryptographic digital currency blockchain that conforms to the strictest of guidelines and parameters that make it of the best quality possible in every aspect from security to trust? That's not cheap! It’s not necessary to actually do the math to intuitively understand that, since the “producers” are, in this case, the “miners”, all those kilowatthours will be paid for - and imagine what the total of electric bills must look like. Those are production costs that will be paid for! Then fixed costs will be recovered as well, and if you add all those numbers up, you’ll probably come up with a figure that reasonably represents an absolute base value below which DGB should never go (and which is still many times above where price is now).

Then we come to the early investors (some of which are also miners . . . maybe even started out as miners . . . maybe even only ever did mining) who take home the lion’s share. As they should. Their risk is handsomely rewarded. Again, rightly so.

....

The problem with current atl-coin pricing is that it is based on very simplistic analysis which is applied across the board without almost any consideration of any other criteria: a simple Your_Favorite_Coin-BTC ratio, nothing else, and for everything, every alt-coin, across the board. Coins like DGB won’t be appropriately valued until the valuation analysis becomes a bit more sophisticated.

The Nvidia GTX 960 produces almost 4 times the mining yield on a per kwh basis when compared to the AntMiner S5.

That's the most cost effective mining available on Earth.

Nice idea, but I'm not sure about the need to "free" the DGB main thread of this material though - it is a quite essential and extremely important aspect of any cryptographic digital currency . . . by definition.

And when it has to do with wasting time or not - and that's what SHA ASIC mining is, BTW - it's probably even more important to have it on the main thread. We should be making very clear to everyone that GPU mining is the most "profitable" by a long shot, with the Nvidia cards being the crème de la crème.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Maybe it's because it's not necessary and won't be for another decade . . .

There are a lot of other great POS coins out there though if that's what you're looking for.

We know pretty well what the DGB daily SHA256 payouts look like, so now we need to find reliable numbers for the same mining BTC (in order to compare). This is a screenshot of MultiPool's most recent BTC payouts with their profit BTC/GH/day figures:

The numbers for the mining yield comparisons for the various algos (principally SHA256d and groestl, but the others are well known to fit somewhere in between those two extremes) mentioned in various posts immediately proceeding that post.

Executive summary: given the actual numbers reported for SHA256d mining,  by my calculations, on a per kilowatthour basis, the Nvidia video cards are by far the most profitable.

That is great news since the multi-algo fork was meant to create a level playing field without excluding anyone, and it seems to be working perfectly.

Please, everyone, help to confirm these numbers by posting your mining results: hardware, hashrate, and the average realtime DGB payouts you are receiving on a daily basis.

The only negative I see at the moment is that cpu mining is completely "out of the game", but whether that is something we should really worry about or not is open for debate.

Some have already quite generously posted their data. If you can help by adding to the data sample so we can come up with more conclusive data, it would be greatly appreciated by all I'm sure.

If these numbers hold up, then the Nvidia cards are going to be the hands down winners!

http://asistec-ti.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26#p75

Are you really only getting 50K DGB with 3 TH/s? That's extremely poor - about 1/25th what I was calculating. Are you mining DGB?