Funnily enough, i believe the whole plan is to create an altcoin bull pump and dump, so certain parties make more BTC from the suckers.
Well, if that's the plan, then it seems to be a success. Since many alts aren't taking their normal inverse dive, I'm certain that more than a few miners are happy to have the 4:1 income increase over mining bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
...[random bunch of horseshit]...
No, no, no, and no. My assertion of PoS causing the PoW diff rise has nothing to do with the "block explorer" and everything to do with the fact that PoS also causes the PoW diff rise. 173163(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 10,849,564.343398461 173164(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 11,674,646.420183057 173165(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 12,687,747.819705047173166(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 13,238,472.427967682 173167(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 14,302,744.14371756 173168(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 15,519,504.990542868 173169(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 16,837,335.577709377 173170(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 18,167,462.831460673 173171(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 18,493,202.31708548 173172(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 19,936,804.84795735 173173(Proof of Work) found - new PoW diff: 21,623,593.34002006 173174(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 23,508,549.29570237
173175(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 25,572,621.248052098
173176(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 27,842,361.37148645
173177(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 33,118,312.31543119
173178(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 33,136,278.308670625
173179(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 39,731,716.177215986
173180(Proof of Stake) found - new PoW diff: 39,749,396.211334035I'm not a fan of pointless code, so I don't have the PoS diffs in my PoW stratum; however, I'm guessing you're capable enough to look at whatever block explorer you thought I was looking at and see that the PoS diff goes both up and down, during the blocks noted above, based on PoS block times alone. FACT: PoS blocks increase the PoW diff.FACT: PoW diff never decreases due to lack of PoS (i.e.,long PoS block times). FACT: Long PoS block times decrease PoS. FACT: Long PoS block times only decrease PoS. FACT: PoW blocks increase PoW diff. FACT: PoW blocks do not increase PoS diff. FACT: Long PoW block times are the only thing that decrease PoW diff. As for what coin I would/could/should be mining and when: for the last several months, "alts" generally pay more when traded for BTC than actually mining BTC (most days 1.5-3x) and I've been looking for a decent coin to stick with since NEOS went PoS. And, now, we've both wasted 5 minutes. Accuse me of being a child, a "troll", or a "butthead" all you want; however, when you do, at least set aside your hubris long enough to pull your head out of your ass! |
|
|
|
...Folding is the same as mining just differant algo
....
No and no. Folding isn't even close to mining, and it's not "an algorithm". Folding is a scientific set of steps used in simulating the literal folding and unfolding of proteins. In mining, GuyA "competes" against GuyB to be the 1st to arrive at a solution to a cryptography based equation. GuyA and GuyB will always be working on the same thing. In folding, both GuyA and GuyB will go through the many steps to ensure a scientific experiment works. GuyA and GuyB will not always be working on the same thing. Comparing folding to mining, and saying they are the same thing, is like comparing a car to a tree and saying they are the same because they both have mass.  Stop denying reality.  |
|
|
|
...
If you do read back, you'll see that I'm all about the economics when making choices. I can't see any situation where T9s make sense (and I'm a guy that bought S7LNs [after S9s were released] and turned them into 5.1TH "S7"s). I'm sure you'll find those that are anti-S9 and will say that the added expense of the T9 is "worth it" for the "reliability"; however, if you do the math, every "bad" S9 found on Google, found on Bitmain's forum, and found on some random blog/forum added together likely equals less than 0.1% of units sold. Given that you have the background, my suggestion would be to get the place (rent, buy, etc.), get it set up for what you think is your max (i.e.,most watts you can pull, most air you can move, etc.), and then, if you envision running 10, buy 10 S9s and let them do their thing. The only real difference between GPU mining and now is that ASICs have cgminer already on them and it's accessed/"controlled" via a browser (in over-simplified terms, an S9 [or the like] is a self contained PC and the ASIC cards themselves are the equivalent of what was, then, the GPU). |
|
|
|
...Fed up with seeing no block for 30 minutes then 3 blocks in 10 minutes. It makes confirmation time yo yo unpredictable.
That's likely to happen no matter what the diff is. |
|
|
|
...Mine are running in a 15-17 deg C room temp...
And you still have a positive ROI? We keep our building @ 24-26C. |
|
|
|
[ img ]
 |
|
|
|
so is this ASICBOOST proof then? if so, why did Bitmain agree? And why was Core not invited?  No, one has nothing to do with the other (despite the rumors, unfounded accusations, and wild conspiracy theories). Given that they are still pushing BU blocks at Antpool, I'm not entirely convinced that they did. And because they don't have to be. |
|
|
|
The 1MB blocks size is not a mess..
True, because having 110MB of unconfirmed transactions is just great. |
|
|
|
Why get a T9 over an S9?
Disliking of ROI, enjoyment of paying a higher energy cost, and enjoyment of purchasing extra cooling equipment and PSUs.  |
|
|
|
...Far better would be to achieve widespread consensus around some compromise that is not perfect but is "good enough for now"...
Isn't that the mentality that got us in this 1MB size mess in the 1st place (not perfect but "good enough for now")? |
|
|
|
"Should I buy 10 of these or 10 or the T9. Planning on building my first farm. Want to start it in my house and once I figured it out and it generates enough cash flow to rent a place out for it and scale it up."
Serious question I am thinking about investing some money into these and want to try to a little mining side business and expand it after they pay themselves off.
Well, if you're wanting to generate cash flow, then you don't want to start 10 "in you house" nor do you want to buy 10 T9s that use 3,388.2W more to produce the same hashrate as 10 S9s. |
|
|
|
...Thus the actual outcome has changed because of others, not Satoshi. You shouldn't confused the intention, design, desire of Satoshi, with the present developers' desire thus creating a different "actual outcome."...
But they were hand-picked by him with a clear understanding of how to carry out his vision, just ask them and they will tell you.  I thought Satoshi just picked Gavin. No one else? That was sarcasm, there's just as much "proof" for you to claim that he picked you. |
|
|
|
I'm 100% certain that only 1 of the 2 of us is all on about Blockstream. I'm 100% certain that you can't hear the facts when you plug your ears like that and look for something mundane like the repetition of a company's name to talk about. Why not try responding to the points given? Afraid that it'll be uncomfortable to learn how wrong you are? It's impossible to respond because it's only in your head that what you said has anything to do with what I said. I said they are getting paid. You went on about some "conspiracy theory" nonsense. Frankly, I couldn't care less who is paying them (or even why). The fact is that anyone getting paid any amount to do something gives that person a motivation to keep that something relevant. Specifically, in this case, the fact that Core devs get paid is it's own incentive for Core devs to fight to keep Core going. |
|
|
|
...In other words, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks, one should have a difficulty adjustment following Moore's law...
1965 is over and we've about reached the end of Moore's law. Absolutely not. Moore's law is alive and kicking. But Moore's law is an *economic* law, not a law of raw performance. The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.
Essentially, he says that the cost of an individual electronic function goes down by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years, and that's exactly what we need for the economic cost of proof of work. It doesn't mean that the computational power of a laptop will increase by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years ; that could be a manifestation, but it could just as well be that a telephone with same functionality as 1.5 years ago, is half as expensive. 1. It's purely assumptive on your behalf that I said, or implied, anything about "raw performance". 2. He was looking backwards from 1965. 3. He was looking no more forward than 1975. 4. The fact remains that "the manufacturing cost per component [per circuit]" can't continue to halve much more from this point forward. 5. Scale plays into 4 (Bitmain and Canaan aren't Intel). |
|
|
|
...Thus the actual outcome has changed because of others, not Satoshi. You shouldn't confused the intention, design, desire of Satoshi, with the present developers' desire thus creating a different "actual outcome."...
But they were hand-picked by him with a clear understanding of how to carry out his vision, just ask them and they will tell you. |
|
|
|
The most important thing in a coin is the software being solid, and Core devs have proven time after time for years, that they are the best in the game...
So we can assume that you've thoroughly tested every other option to be qualified to make such an assertion? There's no "other options"... When you claim "they are the best in the game" and they are the "only" in the game, by extension, you're also saying "Core devs are the worst in the game. " Because, logic.  |
|
|
|
It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that calls it "Twatter".  |
|
|
|
The most important thing in a coin is the software being solid, and Core devs have proven time after time for years, that they are the best in the game...
So we can assume that you've thoroughly tested every other option to be qualified to make such an assertion? |
|
|
|
...[blablablibiddybla]...
Thank you for being the shining example of: Sad how much of this thread points out the real problem: Most people that have an opinion don't even know the underlying factors of their own opinion (much less the opinion they oppose).  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
