Do you really think so? Where are you getting your data? Blocks are being mined at an equal rate (more or less) regardless of the algo being used. http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com And the block reward is the same. Yes I have used this page. On that page you have an information how many coins you are getting per unified MH unit. 340 MYR / MH day by Sricpt 2805 MYR / MH day by Skein Of course this data fluctuates with every block a bit. My SKEIN GPU rig has power usage 300 W / 1 MH = 2805/300 = 9,35 MYR / W My SCRIPT ZEUS Blizzard miner has 38 W / 1 MH = 340/38 = 8,94 MYR / W Okay, I’ve been going over the numbers, and your numbers are looking better and better, but . . . Should it be the case that you are correct, the ASIC issue would be mute since effective reward adjustment would be already happening on an individual miner, per MH/s, basis. Looking at things from the total number of coins mined and their distribution to individual miners on a 1 MH/s basis, we move in your direction, but are unable to arrive at a similar conclusion with respect to Scrypt (on the other hand, the numbers suggest that SHA-256 should be effectively neutralized). I’m going to use the numbers taken from the following snapshot.  Let’s divide the 120,000 coins mined each hour by the 5 algos doing the mining. That leaves us with 24,000 coins, per hour, for each algo. If we then divide those 24,000 coins by the respective algo hashrates, we come up with the following results: Scrypt = 14.916096 coins per hour per MH/s SHA-256 = .0011722 coins per hour per MH/s Groestl = 2.2573363 coins per hour per MH/s Skein = .3992414 coins per hour per MH/s Qubit = 8.4299262 coins per hour per MH/s That’s simply dividing the reward by the collective hashrates. The per hour, per MH/s distribution is what it is. Same machine DAILY results would be roughly the following: Scrypt = 357.9863 coins @ 1 MH/s SHA-256 = 28.1328 coins @ 1 GH/s Groestl = 920.9932 coins @ 17 MH/s Skein = 1197.7242 coins @ 120 MH/s Qubit = 1143.0979 coins @ 5.65 MH/s That’s how the global numbers are divvyed up (give or take a few KH/s). Why would the SHA-256 settle for so little? Do they really have much choice? Anywhere else to go? . . . instead of turning their ASICs into very expensive paperweights . . . By these numbers, Scrypt ASIC is still hauling them in (on a relative basis) and have a long way to go before falling below breakeven (when using the 7 watt gridseed as electricity cost basis, even more so). So, is this issue a non-issue with respect to SHA-256? Or still an issue since they are so desperate as to keep mining when it’s a losing proposition and throwing good money after bad? These numbers suggest to me that the Scrypt ASIC continues to be an issue - until their numbers grow sufficiently so as to reduce their per MH/s rewards below profitability. Just where that equilibrium lay is still an unknown, but we can be quite sure it’s at some lower price rather than a higher price . . . as long as ASIC is part of the picture (unless their numbers and crowd herding gets as crazy as the SHA-256 crowd). BTW, what are the components of your SKEIN GPU rig? |
|
|
|
Common denominator - electricity prices. People that think ASICS are wrong for Myriad don't understand the concept of 5 algos at all.
Just an example from current status quo:
Script (ASIC) - 305 MYR / 1 MH - power usage 30 W - 10,2 MYR per 1W consupmption daily
Skein (GPU) - 2500 MYR / 1 MH - power usage 280 W - 8,9 MYR per 1W consupmption daily
Pretty much the same efficiency.
EVERY ONE IS INVITED. EVERY ONE CAN MINE ON EQUAL TERMS! THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF THIS COIN!
Do you really think so? Where are you getting your data? Blocks are being mined at an equal rate (more or less) regardless of the algo being used. http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com And the block reward is the same. Here's another block explorer where you can go through and compare directly (if you prefer first hand confirmation). You can do an easy face-to-face comparison between ASIC and Skein simply counting the blocks found with the 6-7 digit difficulty that correspond to the ASIC King (aka SHA-256) and those with 4 digit difficulty that correspond to Skein. https://altexplorer.net/chain/MyriadCoin |
|
|
|
I would like to make this clear here for anyone interested. ASIC miners have the least dump risk of all. Right now the biggest dumping is being done by two entities:
1. multipools because that's what they do.
2. gpu miners because of the high costs of running a gpu mining operation.
Asic miners have the least power consumption and best $/mh ratio so thei have the smallest incentive to mine and dump at these prices.
This is just my reasoning if you feel I'm wrong please comment.
PS: I'm a gpu miner too so there's no need for me to defend asics but I just think that the current schema is the best possible solution to include everyone.
I would take issue with your assumption that ASIC miners have the smallest incentive to mine and dump at these prices. In fact, they are the only ones who can do so at a profit at these prices. I would suggest that the only long term holders among miners at this time would be the GPU miners, or how else could we justify their mining at a loss (short term loss in their minds since they are thinking long term). It would just make no rational economic sense at all to be mining and immediately selling at a loss. That's tantamount to giving your money away to strangers. The GPU miner who is looking to support GPU mining operations currently does so at a guaranteed loss and would be better advised to shut down if not holding for the long term. My assumptions are based on classical economic theory: if you can produce something at a lower cost, you can also profitably sell it at a lower cost, meaning the price of the product adjusts lower accordingly. And a 20:1 differential is nothing to shake a stick at.  (An adjusted block reward would also solve the multipool issue as well.) |
|
|
|
I've been repeating myself saying we need asics for polymyr to work, but after re-reading the whitepaper a few times, I came to a realization. Yes we need asics, but we don't need SCRYPT asics. The sha-256 asics can cover the whole spread. The thing that clicked for me was reading about the offset block rewards for the merged mining of alt coins on the network (the whitepaper won't let me copy/paste, go read the future plans section). If done correctly, scrypt coins could still merge with myr, but with an adjusted block reward to make it worthwhile, we could say screw mining scrypt altogether and still contribute enough buy support to keep scrypt coins' heads above water.
There's no need to screw anyone (if we could do it for SHA-256, then we could do it for both without discriminating). We only need to make things fair for miners. The mining cost basis just needs to be equalized. A 1/20th block reward for SHA-256 and Scrypt would accomplish that. That would be 50 coins for ASIC, and 1000 for GPU. It would create a level playing field where everyone could play. Everyone would happy. (Even the multipools, who could still participate . . . if they wanted to at the new adjusted profitability . . .) And it would be easy to do. |
|
|
|
So if I understand it right, it would be better if Sha/scrypt algo's diff would rise much faster compared to GPU/CPU algos. So it would fix the problem we have now. ASICs would get much less coins in the same period of time. In other hand, if ASICs will leave (because of no profit), what will happen to our blockchain? It would decrease quantity of miners drastically... But the price should rise and inflation effect should be much smaller...  I think it's a very difficult subject to address. How would you balance a 20:1 diff ratio between the ASIC algos and the rest? What would that do to the blockchain? It might be much easier to lower the ASIC algos' block rewards to 1/20th that of the other algos (a 50 coin reward for SHA and Scrypt instead of 1000). That would certainly level the playing field! I don't think that it would substantially affect the number of miners we have at present since the ASICs really haven't made that much of an inroad into MYR yet. Theoretically, at most, they only account for 40% of MYR hashrate, so even if they all left (which they won't since some are certainly mining for the long term) we'd still have 60% of the current hashrate, and that would most likely grow rapidly as more and more new MYR miners are attracted to an even fairer coin created for the masses. And don't forget, price would also go up accordingly! |
|
|
|
Sounds like the refunded to a payout address which you don't own (big reason you never use your exchange account any exchange to buy goods and services etc). PM me all the details its a manual process to try and get these back so its not at all fast.
Not bad. Got to start a thread here to get Cryptsy support in action? Could I ask you to review all open tickets that are more than a month old? Mine's a pittance, but I'd still like to finally have my coins sent to me . . . |
|
|
|
|
I've been waiting months for an "approved" coin resend of a transaction that never made it out of Cryptsy's wallet in the first place.
From what I've seen, I'm not alone in my plight.
They're either incompetent idiots or outright thieves.
Long and short of it, patience and lots of hope (especially keeping in mind that most of their "tech support" is probably made up of sock puppets).
|
|
|
|
I imagine you're busy and haven't been able to give SRC, EXE, HIRO, DGB, DMD, GRS, and MYR the attention they deserve (or perhaps the attention they don't deserve, since, in the main, my quick glance analysis using your criteria puts these coins in pretty favorable light). That being said, my positive "quick glance analysis" is by no means an endorsement however. There's much more to be looked at beyond a coin's inception. Here's a good exercise for anyone wishing to look at these 7 coins more in-depth. Can you match each coin with the following descriptions?- Slick hucksters with a very polished spiel who are only interested in getting rich themselves
- Kids who really are convinced that they know what they're doing
- Adults who are in way over their heads and risking total coin inoperability at every turn
- Seasoned experts who will survive
- The man who someday will be called the Steve Jobs of cryptocurrencies is a member here
- Kids who are smart enough to know their days are numbered and are bailing
- More kids who still think they just might get lucky and pull it off
As you might imagine, 2 of the seven are on my aggressive accumulation list (along with one other not included in this list - in a portfolio that also has a smattering of "long shots"). |
|
|
|
On the other hand, this research is attempting to be as objective as possible.
You must be joking. I've never seen a single author with this many axes to grind. Thanks for doing your part to help keep this at the top! |
|
|
|
The improved version of the main Diamond website is up http://bit.diamonds .
It's still need some polishing but the concept is finally there. We want it to be focused and clean and not another parallax bootstrap clone. Even though, it uses some bootstrap elements.
The forum is also there but needs some adjustments before it's fully ready to use. You can start registering there, however. It's 100% bootstrap. Who are you trying to fool? Just another generic, template, crypto website. http://www.maxcdn.com/ Oh, and the English needs revision too . . . . . . with tinypic images !?!?!? http://i41.tinypic.com/15i2mfp.jpgAdd: PM me if you ever want to get serious with your public image (I do websites and localizations at going rates). |
|
|
|
|
Nice updating of your wiki. The graphs are an especially helpful addition - a picture's worth a thousand words!
|
|
|
|
Should be more like : We are really busy copying everyone else's work right now . Changing the coin name and logo is SOOOO hard !! Great development team keep it up guys  Dogecoin is just Litecoin with some of the parameters changed and the logo replaced with the Shiba Inu from the Doge meme. As of this moment, it has a market cap of over 29 million US dollars. As long as Execoin's developer(s) are following the open source license(s) and making their own source available, it doesn't matter how much or how little they change. If the worst thing you can say about Execoin is that it's not original or revolutionary enough, then fine, don't use it and don't let the door hit you on the way out. The altcoin market is full of crap that has been abandoned by developers, blatant scams, premine/instamined garbage and don't even get me started with all the Proof of Stake coins that are just thinly-veiled Ponzi schemes. Please take your bleeding heart FUD to a coin deserving of it. For example: VRC mined all of its 26 million coins in 7 days. DRK was designed so that the block reward would absolutely plummet once the coin reached a certain amount of hashrate and the 1000 coin requirement to be a masternode is just a clever scheme to create buying pressure. POT has been on the rise lately and it's another "copypasta" LTC clone with the only innovation being their business plan of "Dude, legal pot shops might take this coin some day cause man, there's no way you'd ever use any other cryptocoin to buy your pot!" EXE is one of the few coins that isn't out to screw over miners or investors and the developers clearly aren't getting rich off this coin. It's not built on the false hope that maybe someday it will be fully anonymous if the stars align correctly, will save the economy of Crackalackastan or uses a celebrity's likeness without actually having their endorsement. Execoin is just an easy, fast decentralized way of sending money with a lot of potential if people would just give it a chance. Very nicely said. Very nice find. Since that's relatively recent, would it be reasonable to think that someone is "parking" a long term investment? |
|
|
|
I am somewhat surprised by the nearly complete absence of intellectual integrity on the part of the critics of this research and the insistence on defending the indefensible by means of innuendo and unfounded attacks. NOT! The first line of the Wiki goes like this: " Note: The following attempts to approach 90% of the top ranking coins on www.coinmarketcap.com in terms of their rudimentary mining data." What is it that is so hard to understand about that statement? Are you all really that mentally challenged? “ . . . in terms of their rudimentary data.” Now, if you’d like to criticize the fact that there isn’t better data to work with (instead of trying to blame that shortcoming on the author), that’d be another thing (where, by definition, you’d actually end up finding yourselves more closely aligned with the author and probably not too happy doing so). There are other metrics, like being able to tell the difference between which dev is a scam-man, and which is simply incompetent (two very important metrics for making long term investment decisions BTW, both equally disastrous, but with the latter always having the remote possibility of ‘making good’), but those are very subjective metrics ATM (not to be ignored, to be sure, just because of that however, when we see very clear signs that someone is either killing the code or intentionally manipulating). On the other hand, this research is attempting to be as objective as possible. What problem does anyone possibly have with that? Other than not wanting what little objective data there is to become better known? Why would someone suggest that this research is invalid due to the limited (by nature) data it is based on? And how infantile to think that you might be able to discredit the author based on such a childish attack! Is there somehow, somewhere, more objective data on real, verifiable, historical coin behavior that could be included? How can you blame the author for the shortcomings of the subject under study? Objectivity depends in large part on objective data. The only reason why I think someone would try to put down with irrationally aggressive attacks an objective report based on the scant objective data available would be that they don’t want any objective analysis to begin with of whatever little objective data that there may be – they'd prefer to keep the ‘suckers’ in the dark (much can be said about someone by their reaction and attitude towards any given stimulus . . .). Now, the next logical step would be to start comparing what different devs say with what they do/have done, coin specs and objectives with real life expectations, transparency with the lack of, etc., but those are, as I’ve said, much more subjective and open to debate, and, as such, well beyond the scope of this current work (so if you want to be critical of the limitations of this wiki, you know what to do and can start rolling up your sleeves). And if anyone is honestly struggling with the conceptual premise of this current work in progress, think about it this way: if past performance (i.e. track record) is any indication . . . |
|
|
|
A lot of hard work you’ve put into this, and I too must congratulate you. I am a miner AND investor and, in this crypto space that’s filled with con-artists and their all too often willingly ignorant victims, I wholeheartedly welcome your contributions. It’s work like this that will someday be seen as part of the beginning of the emergence of serious bona fide cryptocurrencies. I’ve got to commend you on your courage as well - got to stand up to them face to face and give them hell like you did here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587086.msg6635563#msg6635563 (When you can anyway . . . the army of sock puppets are a little bit more difficult to address . . .) If you are still adding coins, perhaps you might find interesting adding the following to your wiki: SRC, EXE, HIRO, DGB, DMD, GRSAnd maybe the best take away from this analysis to date might be Myriad. Myriadcoin: "It may not become the gold standard, but it's one of the best out there."
Everyone likes Myriad, but nobody wants to invest in it because you're unable to form a cartel to choke off coin supply and artificially increase value. It's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness! This seems to be the problem with most legit coins. Those scheming to get rich in a week aren't interested because they can't manipulate the price as easily. Sad but true. Might that be yet another very compelling reason why MYR is quite possibly one of the best long term investment prospects out there right now? BTW, @r0ach, how do you explain DGC’s distribution curve (a coin that has prided itself on fairness from day one and released in a pre-KGW World)? |
|
|
|
Yeah Digi is really a good coin  Over 12 hours and 1 confirmation on a transfer, great :/ Less than 100 blocks found in the last 2 days. And to think that I was accused of "trolling so hard" for simply, directly and clearly bringing this issue to the Devs' attention! That does not speak well in their favor. Further accusing me of being a Dev for a competitor coin whose only interest was to "attack DGB" was just more of the same. All that from a Dev team that has now begun to work around the clock for a solution. Would that be what we'd call, "eating their words"? Well, at least they've gone from trying to sweep it under the carpet to saying that they're working on a solution! Is that really the case though? The old block explorer is no longer working: http://explorer.cryptopoolmining.com/chain/DigiByte Does that mean we can no longer see where the freezes happen and follow the situation ourselves? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408268.msg7117821#msg7117821https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408268.msg7124380#msg7124380 |
|
|
|
Everything is fine.
If you have problems with the Mac wallet, a good alternative would be to run the windows wallet in a virtualbox.
that's fine to say if have you windows... I see here that the last block was:134145: http://explorer.cryptopoolmining.com/chain/DigiByteTook just 3 minutes under 6 hours to find the next block. Yes, you read that right, 6 hours for all intents and purposes! If anyone is wondering why no-one is mining DGB, that's your answer right there. You need go no further, need think no longer. And that was after an 83.185 diff that had already "adjusted" down from a previous 124.777 diff on the previous block just 4 minutes before 124145. Oh, how I'd like to know what's causing this and why the only coins I've found with similar issues are coins using DigiShield. |
|
|
|
Hi, I have the version 2.0.1.0 of the wallet. Send one week ago some diamonds to Cryptsy and still nothing. On my wallet say Unconfirmed. Maybe someone can tell me whats happening? Also 5 of my diamonds went unconfirmed without advice  Thanks in advance This is what I get with my regular wallet that is supposedly NOT on testnet, and is supposedly connected to the working network.  Got another one open on another machine that's working fine though . . . it's been open 24 hours a day for over 3 weeks now waiting for a Crypsty resend of coins lost when the wallet went down last time . . . |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
