Is that cheap? Is it worth it? I haven't mined since the Antminer S3, maybe I should give it another go for the lulz. P.S.: It basically says in its own page that it is unprofitable to mine with it. And... 1700Watts? That would be a very expensive PSU that I don't have. Think I'll pass on the offer. Yeah I have stayed away from mining Sha for quite some time, it's too aggressive on difficulty and the equipment is all Enterprise style (loud as fuck fans over standard 110v power draw) GPU mining is even getting cut out more and more by fpga and I want to dip my toes in fpga but the up front cost is too damn high. A quick calc on https://whattomine.com/asic20Tera Hashes @ 1700W Electricity @ $0.1/kWh This generates $3.39 on Bitcoin mining, with an overall profit of -$0.69 / day. I guess it may be a cheap way to heat your greenhouse in the winter, but not much else. |
|
|
|
So, does anybody know why adamstgBit left?
Let me guess, he pulled a DeathandTaxes, MnW or cypherdoc type scam and left? That’s usually how the old guard chooses to leave.
Who is MnW? DeathandTaxes' scam thoroughly disappointed me. He was such an insightful guy, one of the smartest and most knowledgeable posters around imho. I thought he came across as a standup guy, but clearly my judgement of him was very flawed. Matthew N Wright - made a bet with half of the forum for a shitload of money because he was duped by Trendon Shavers into causing a distraction from the fact his Ponzi was about to fail. He may have been paid to do it but we’ll never know for sure. He wasn’t banned for that but because he constantly kept calling theymos out over various shit. DeathandTaxes was the real mystery. Highly respected knowledgeable member that decided he didn’t want to be here anymore so he ripped people off and left. You’re judgment of him wasn’t wrong. He was a standup guy for a long time - until he wasn’t. That’s why “trust” systems don’t work. It’s very possible to build up trust for a couple of years, get a bunch of deals in place and run with the money. Same with Tradefortress, made a big deal over calling out scammers and trying very hard at building up trust with people. He started an investment site, where people could invest in Bitcoin startups, but then he did a runner with 3.5K coins. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=67058 |
|
|
|
|
Oh... FFS, now I'm making so little on my Shitcoin mining, I'll have to close the window in winter.
|
|
|
|
SV Cash catching up fast to ABC Cash
Catching up, or even overtaking the block count means nothing, as the difficulties between chains are now different, the only figure that matters is the total proof of work at the tip of each chain. https://forkmonitor.info/nodes/bchYou can see & monitor that here under 'Accumulated log2(PoW)': https://cash.coin.dance/blocks/hashrateBut probably a better way to view how far ABC are ahead is represented by the area between the orange & red lines on this graph. SV need to exceed the Hash power of ABC for a sustained time before they have the longest chain (ie there is new area created with red above orange, that is bigger than red below orange area) , and even then, they will not re-org ABC because of the checkpoints inserting into the code, that manually select which fork the ABC Node software will follow. Craig's dreams that there will only be one chain will remain a dream. https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81115/if-someone-wanted-to-pretend-to-be-satoshi-by-posting-a-fake-signature-to-defrauThe latest message signature from Craig Wright via his 'Satoshi' twitter account is debunked by Greg Maxwell here. TLDR: A crypto trick that needs careful analysis by a crypto expert to spot, very similar to the one a few years back that was using a signature pulled out of the block chain. |
|
|
|
|
This shitshow has given us a new opportunity to correctly name the forks.
Previously, we have been unable to drop the Bitcoin part of their names, because it simply left 'cash' which is of course ambiguous.
I guess its obvious but, we can now correctly relegate them to the proper Altcoin categorisation by using:
ABC Cash
SV Cash
|
|
|
|
Hmm. I had been hoping for a kumbaya moment. But now that it seems clear that ABC will the minority fork -- to the point where it becomes an economic non-factor -- I am happy for split to occur. I quite prefer the structure of SV over ABC. What with it being essentially 'the original bitcoin minus some coding errors'.
So SV adopts the mantle of The Real BCH as a stepping stone to eventually becoming The Real Bitcoin. Cool. I can live with that.
You must be happy having someone as wise & talented as CSW dictating the direction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNSq5wYdwb0&feature=youtu.be&t=43We need someone to make them agree!! |
|
|
|
Lol, everyone has to walk on egg shells, they don't want to upset him, and have him storm out in a hissy fit. But that game ensures he is never really challenged and retains the power in the discussion. If Craig forces-in SV and BCH is the last currency on earth I won't use it, and will do all I can to help destroy it! ! Wait... wrong trope. I meant to say, We only wish to raise quality of life for all species. WooHoo!! thanks |
|
|
|
Lol, everyone has to walk on egg shells, they don't want to upset him, and have him storm out in a hissy fit. But that game ensures he is never really challenged and retains the power in the discussion. If Craig forces-in SV and BCH is the last currency on earth I won't use it, and will do all I can to help destroy it! |
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I don’t want to give the impression that I care about bcash because I really don’t.
That said, I don’t see how Craig can win. Jihan controls more hashpower. That means Jihan can 51% attack SV at any time. For Craig to 51% attack ABC, he would have to remove almost all his hashing power from SV, leaving SV undefended. That just doesn’t seem sustainable. Maybe I am missing something.
I think you are right Jihan has way more hash available,but I think Craig has no intention of splitting the chain, if it splits and he can’t re-org away the incompatible blocks he is going to ignore his side of the chain and continue attacking the ABC side even if he destroys all confidence, he wants to kill ABC at all costs. |
|
|
|
I thought I'd spread a little of the opinions and information I've gathered over the last few days about the BCH split. CSW doesn't want a fork, he currently controls over 51% of the hash on BCH, and if unchanged this would allow him to prevent a fork and not allow any of his opponent's blocks to form a chain. CSW claims they have enough resources to do this for 2 years, and will do this no matter what the price on exchanges. This is really scaring the shit out of Roger and Jihan. On the other hand Jihan controls/influences a shit ton of hash on BTC, which he can switch over to BCH if he wants to fight. If this is the case the war could go on for a long time, depleting both of their funds (through unrecouped electricity costs, because no doubt mining will be very unprofitable, more so, if the price crashes). CSW has laid his cards on the table, and it's pretty clear he intends to fight, but Roger & Jihan have been hostile in response, but I'm not aware of what their strategy will be. The war may also involve code based attacks on each software implementation, devs may not have hash power but they are inventive enough to exploit weaknesses in each others code. As a BTC maximalist I want the war to go on for a long time resulting in less cash reserves for both money both Jiahn and CSW. Although the risk to BTC is well over the horizon at the moment, it is no doubt the destruction of BTC that is in both their long games, and whoever wins this hash war will be embolden to collect financial partners/investors (state sponsored?) and eventually turn on BTC. Profit? At this pumped up fork price, I think the only direction for the price is downwards. Unless one of them capitulates which I don't think is very likely, their will be many large re-orgs and a major loss in confidence by BCH's holders and users, exchanges won't allow trading until things settle down, but how long could that be? Interesting Sources: Vin Armani http://didyouknowcrypto.com/hash-wars/ - this guy still wrongly believes hash power is king, but it's an interesting listen. CSW with Tone Vays https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACEUOCoVvmwRoger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFU1o-0oU7A |
|
|
|
I’m generally not a fan of Falkvinge, but this piece on predators (Specifically Craig Wright) is spot on, and has pushed me into completely ignoring him. https://youtu.be/Zkg_-_HwRcI |
|
|
|
Thought they had 2 separtate accounts with 2 separate banks? Do you have a balance statement from the other one? The letter is linked from here https://tether.to/tether-banking-relationship-announced/Tether has a market cap of $1.77B, this letter confirms the bank has $1.83B. It's not conclusive, only a full audit would give that degree of certainty. But it's actual evidence, which is something the Tether arguments have been lacking for many months. |
|
|
|
Bad thing is that I can't swim anymore and I have to cut my evening alcohol consumption  Get yourself a nice lady friend. Thailand is full of them. Just make sure you wear a helmet. As it were. Was sent this today.... the Thai's are revolting  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZvzvLiGUtwSubtitles are a bit inaccurate, but you'll get the gist, many people are getting pissed at what's happening in Thailand. After my last visit I got the impression westerners aren't welcome in the tourist haunts anymore, they aren't easily herded into the buses like the Chinese, and all the sex industry is being pushed underground, everything is being sanitised. |
|
|
|
Anybody mind explaining to me how tether works and how it's relevant to bitcoin price at all?
1. There is a blockchain that is unlike any other in that it has no protocol defining the coin supply automatically. It just gets added to manually on an arbitrary basis by a human being 2. The ability to do this is under the exclusive power of a private company registered in the Cayman Islands with a couple or more private shareholders 3. There is a notional idea that the amount of coin supply represents the amount of "real" $USD that is sent to the bank accounts of that company registerred in the Cayman Islands. But this is simply an unverifiable fairy tail as far as regular traders and observers are concerned HOW IT AFFECTS BITCOIN 1. Many of the biggest exchanges in the world that quote "USD" prices for bitcoin are actually trading bitcoin against this "synthetic blockchain dollar" as opposed to real bank deposits 2. In particular, the largest exchange in the world (is it ?) - or one of them, Bitfinex 3. Bitfinex also happens to be owned/run by the same owners of the Cayman Islands company that produce the "fake" dollars, So this would effectively allow them to create any amount of liquidity for nothing on the USD side of the trade and buy of the bitcoin on their own or other exchanges, thereby creating hugely artificial market pumps/dumps. We do in fact see Bitfinex leading the price in a lot of pumps as we did today 4. There are some well researched articles showing that the Bitfinex/USD Tether operation has essentially been responsible for the ENTIRE price rise in bitcoin right from $180 to where we are today There is also a campaign of mis-information and FUD surrounding Tether for the last year, some people appear to have a vendetta against Bitfinex and tether. The evidence provided to show that Tether is a fraud doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The more mud that is thrown, the more fools seem to jump on the anti-tether narrative. But there is almost no real evidence!!! I'm not claiming it is or isn't true. Tether have failed to prove they have the dollar backing for every tether in existence, and this is clearly an issue, but it is not hard to imagine reasons why they are not able to perform a full audit. Detailing where the $2.5 Billion dollars are actually located will no doubt open them up to fund freezing by a number of countries. Caution is essential, but keep the risk in perspective, Bitfinex and Tether have a reputable history. |
|
|
|
This is the usual conspiracy theory bull, pick story, retrospectively fit to available facts, design theories to explain everything important.... but there is no evidence!!! Nothing, that doesn’t mean it’s not true, it means to a smart person it should carry the same weight as all those other unsubstantiated conspiracies, and then be consigned to the bin until some reasonable evidence is produced. The danger of things like this is it will modify your opinion or outlook and cause your to make irrational/illogical decisions. |
|
|
|
“If you know your peers” what does that mean, how can you trust another peer? By whitelisting their IP address? ... like that’s reliable. your iq has become negative... it's called trust and it's way way way more powerful than anytrustless system... fluidjax, have you been born that stupid or something happened or you are paid to be? please don't feel insulted, I wouldn't cry if you call me too big to enter your sport car  , it's here you are too stupid... it's just who you are. Me stupid.... can't you understand what I'm talking about, does it need to be spelt out to you? If you choose to blindly trust a peer that's your own (poor) choice, my point was how do you know you are really speaking to the peer you want to trust? This is where 0-conf falls over, it requires a blind trust in an unverifiable 3rd party. |
|
|
|
We talk about unneeded over-engineering - that's all. If a road is getting too small and you have space left at its sides, you simply create more lanes - not complex bridges or tunnels and crosses ! (and charge for ppl need to use the safer road) - esp if all the shops and merchants are already built next to that road.  Hey HV? Have you checked out the new Bitcoin Core fork of BCH? There is an 8mb block every 60 seconds! Thats 10x throughput and 10x confirmation speed? Are you switching today? As a big block lover, you will find it absolutely fabulous https://thebitcoincore.org/ I heard that instead of 0 confirmation transactions, they'll have negative conf. Their wallet AI will anticipate and confirm future transactions before you even send them. And instead of double spend attacks, you'll be able to do quadruple spend. It's the original vision, yo! 0-conf works fine if you know your peers - buy your coffee, deposit Bitcoin at banks, pay TAX (you can in Zug / Switzerland) https://twitter.com/justicemate/status/1023877784337145857.. / sure it is not trustess until you wait - exchanges show you exactly that part. “If you know your peers” what does that mean, how can you trust another peer? By whitelisting their IP address? ... like that’s reliable. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
