Wrong.

The vote is "do you support XT or Core".  Other pools (AntPool, BW Pool, etc) are putting things in their coinbase sig (like "8MB") to show they support larger block sizes (BIP100).  They have NOT altered their core clients to XT, which alters the block version number (core is "3", XT is "536870919").  If, come January of 2016, enough blocks are found using XT, a hard fork will occur.

Using XT means more than just "I support larger block sizes".  It also means you support everything else that comes with XT.  Things like:

• Longest chain no longer wins, chain validity is determined using checkpoints periodically added by the XT devs to the code
• Tor nodes are deprioritised from connection as an anti-DOS measure
• Permitted Tor exit nodes are, at present, hard coded into the XT client
• Altered methods of tracking potential double spend transactions

Great points Carlton.  Using XT means you are implicitly accepting all of the changes it brings to the table - not just the increased block size from BIP101.

I also agree that setting arbitrary limits like the ones proposed in BIP101 provides an artificial barrier that may or may not need to be changed as technology progresses in the future.

It's nice to see one of the true cloud mining services showing their gear - and being considerably more transparent.  Unlike those ponzi scheme idiots who claim unrealistic numbers and disappear with your coin whenever they've hit their goals.  Too few genuine cloud mining providers out there... and too many scammers trying to rip people off.

Besides the power costs, consider ambient temperature, relative humidity, accessibility, etc.  Also, consider what pool on which you're planning to mine and your network latency to it - or, if you're going to run your own pool, consider latency to other Bitcoin nodes as the lower the latency, the better chance you have of your shares/blocks being accepted.

Congrats EternalWingsOfGod for guessing the correct range .  +2.95%

Another good week for p2pool, and as a result, p2pool standard payouts have exceeded expectations over the length of the test.  This week's results put my standard p2pool earnings at 101.08% of expected from 12/26 until 8/21.  NastyPoP isn't too far behind, but it is behind nonetheless.  It's overall results show I have received 94.81% of expected earnings.

Here are the numbers:

8/14 - 8/21
NastyPoP: 0.03640067BTC
NastyP2P: 0.04331323BTC
Expected: 0.02939197BTC
Luck - 138.27%

OP updated.

Thus far the only XT blocks found have been mined by Slush.  Sure, some of the other pools are putting things like "8MB" in their coinbase sigs, but they aren't mining to XT.  A few nodes here in p2pool are now, or are planning to very soon, use XT.

The answer depends on your power costs.  The lower the cost it is for you to run a miner, the better.  If you've got $0.04 per kWh, pretty much any gear is going to work for you.  If you're paying more than $0.15 no gear is going to be profitable at current conditions.

No... AntPool supports larger block size and will support XT if it gains the majority.  So far the ONLY pool to actually submit XT blocks is Slush.  Latest was 370817.  However, Slush is also mining version 3 blocks as well.  Latest was 370859.

XT implements BIP101, among other things like improved double spend tracking.  BIP101 allows for increasing maximum block size, thereby removing the 1MB cap currently in place.

If you find a block with an XT node, you'll be able to tell because the version number will be different.  Currently, all blocks found by Core software are version 3.  Blocks found by XT are version 536870919.

Right now, it makes no difference because BIP101 (larger block sizes) doesn't go into effect until 1/11/2016 at the earliest.  However, come that date if 75% of blocks found are by XT then larger block support goes into effect and we've got a hard fork.

Just point your hash to solo.ckpool.org.  It can handle whatever you throw at it

Absolutely not, and that's the benefit and decentralized nature of p2pool.  You can move from your node, to my node to any other node anywhere on the planet and never lose your work.

I think that quite a few people are interested in removing the 1MB size cap on blocks.  I also think quite a few people don't want to see the Bitcoin ecosystem fracture to achieve it.  Unfortunately, XT has done precisely that.  Rather than fork their own coin with a larger block size, they instead keep their own blocks on the same blockchain as core Bitcoin.  While that's not a problem now, it becomes one in the future (potentially January 2016).

Is XT the next evolution in Bitcoin, or is it nothing more than an attempt at a hostile takeover?

Personally, I'm all for BIP101.  I'm not for splintering the Bitcoin ecosystem to get it.

That's not the S7... that's the S5+.  No pricing/specs have actually been announced for the S7, other than it's going to use the new BM1385 chip which is rated for 230W / 1TH.

To OP, you're going to have to do a bunch of research if you're thinking about this.  Just saying you've got $53405 (and what a strange number to throw out there) to invest doesn't really help too much.  You seem to have figured out that Washington has cheap power rates... but it's only a few counties in Washington that have very cheap rates.  Are you going to build?  Rent?  Host?

S1 upgrades?  Who still has those ancient things?

Of course it's bad for Bitcoin...

My own opinion is that Bitcoin shouldn't hamstring itself with a 1M block size limit.  On the other hand, Bitcoin should most definitely not hamstring itself by dissension leading to separate and incompatible blocks that cause a fork.

In any case, investors are going to get scared, and we're already seeing the effects as price has dumped 20% or more in the past 24 hours.

What do you mean it was a test?  You want to perform a test, you throw it up on the test network.  What was done here was slush actively pointing miner hash rate to an XT node which constructed and solved a block.  There is no announcement on the website stating that this would occur.  Perhaps this was announced in some social media, but it isn't anywhere on the actual website.  Therefore, miners weren't given the choice - it was made for them.

Of course, if you did indeed happen to know in advance that this was going to occur, and you chose to keep your miners here, then you voted for XT by default.  If you have become aware of this, and continue to mine here, you are indeed voting for XT.  I wonder if you're going to be given the option in your worker setup or somewhere else (like a different URL/port) to choose XT or Core, or if slush will solely mine on XT nodes.

XT represents a fork, yes, but it does not represent an alt coin.  An alt coin would have its own blockchain, its own genesis block, etc.  XT intends to dump blocks onto the existing Bitcoin blockchain that will be incompatible with blocks found by the Core software (once the larger block size goes into effect).  Currently, any blocks mined by an XT node are completely compatible with existing Core blocks because they are not sized differently.  However, if and when XT gets the 75% vote, they will be able to mine a block that is larger than the 1MB block size Core currently supports, and that will be when the split occurs.

Since you're completely new, I'm going to give you the easiest answer: point your miner to solo.ckpool.org.  It's easy to setup.

URL: stratum+tcp://solo.ckpool.org:3333
User name: your bitcoin address
Password: x

So, if you're running cgminer on the command line, you just start it like this:

Replace "YOUR_BTC_ADDRESS" with a  valid BTC address that you control.

Nobody's mentioned the myriad of gambling sites?  A number of them will give you some free BTC to play with (internal faucets)... a bit of luck and you can turn it into something.  It didn't cost you anything to start, either.