Yes its known for breaking all time highs. You would soon see it moving up quite high. But yes it would take a bit of time. Not at all an overnight process for sure.

This is actually a height of rigidity. If all the people in the world have such a rigid thinking like you I think people will never ever come to bitcoin world because in their mind nothing can replace "fiat" . We need to move on with things we find better. There is nothing like conservatism in this. If you are such a conservative you are failing the idea of bitcoin altogether.

No its finally declared that segwit2x fork has been officially cancelled due to no support from core miners. Most of the wallets have restored with the normal transactions.

Yes the person their can just send back the same amount of bitcoin but problem here is that we dont have any such trusted platform which promises you to return your money. Morever such returns would have to be send back which means transaction fees would have to be paid again. So it would be much better if such a platform is made and transactions are done within the chain.

I use it quite frequently. All I could say is that it really is the best wallet if you have regular work with altcoins. We see most of the altcoins today are erc-20 tokens MEW helps you to store them all. Ultimately the best.

Btc has finally retrieved and BCH's temporary pump is finally and gradually getting over. BTC is once again set to reach new all time high.

He can invest in btc too btc gives much quicker return than any other pension schene so surely he can enjoy his money. But no offense I would request such person to surely share his private key with any nominee😛bitcoin does not has any nominee concept in itself.

This is the date on which the first block was mined along with a incident that took place on that date to prove that actually the first block was mined on this date which created a revolution.

The minimum physical energy requirements to change the state of a digital bit applies no matter what the algorithm, Scrypt uses a random memory read /write algorithm plus sha256 for good measure. For any algorithm the amount of energy used in a brute force attack is direct proportional to the number of bits that may have to change state for each attempt.

This is a question thats come up many times. To put some perspective into the argument have a read at this article:

http://www.bitcoinnotbombs.com/bitcoin-vs-the-nsas-quantum-computer/

Please pay particular attention to the section quoting Bruce Schneier’s 1996 book, 'Applied Cryptography' and the effects of thermodynamics on the processing of information, coupled with Peter Shor's algoritm for a quantum computer to break public key encryption. It's east to forget about physical laws that don't at first glance seem to have any influence.

The basic message is : SHA256 is safe, period. ECSDA might be vulnerable if a viable quantum computer can be built and run reliably but that at the moment would seem to be some years away ay present!

On a side note I've just finished reading an excellent book by Simon Singh, 'The Code Book'. It was written some time ago, long before Bitcoin came into being but it's a very interesting history of codes and codebreaking. Also explains RSA and why super large prme numbers are so sought after.

Thanks for the input. I realise that I didn't do a good job of describing a 'containerised' setup, what I meant was simply using a modified container as a building, it wouldn't have its own mining capacity, just a pile of racks, switches, sockets and 12V psu's to support customers mining systems.

As for opening an Icelandic company it's very easy for an EEC citizen and they are very welcoming to hi-tech industries. As far as I'm aware they view the US in much the same way as they do the EEC so you may just have been unlucky with the person or people you spoke to. It may be different if you actually want to live and work there but it's like every other country - bring jobs/wealth and you're in. If you are still interested in setting up there I would suggest opening a dialogue (if you haven't already done so) with someone in one of their US embassies or missions. Good luck!

I don't know how many of you have been following the post from Great North Data, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1512967.0, it's essentially
their blog of setting up a new data centre in Labrador, Canada and it makes for very interesting reading, not just about the centre but about life in
Labrador. It's very well written.

A lot of the questions from forum users are about power costs, not surprising since this has a major effect on mining profitability. There is an awful
lot of misinformation on the forum about real world power costs but the bottom line is that there are a lot of countries and locations in the world that have
expensive electricity, and so profitable mining there is impossible. Hosting services can be used of course, but they are very much geared towards
users with multiple miners, for instance the GND guys look for a minimum of 10kW (7 S9's) and they are not alone, there are no good solutions for
someone with a single mining system.

This is a problem I've been thinking about for a long time, there is no easy fix but I feel there is a good commercial opportunity to set up a hosting
centre where there is abundant low cost power to serve single (and multiple) unit users by exploiting economies of scale. From my research the best
location by far is Iceland, basically because they have the ideal combination of low temperatures, very cheap power and a truly first world business
attitude and legal system. To access the best rates you need to be taking a load of about 50 - 70MW, ie 2.5x Bitfury's centre in Ukraine and I'm guessing
from the weight of their power transformer that GND have about 8-9MW. The cheapest way to construct a data centre with this level of power would be to
use containerised systems - they are much cheaper than permanent buildings ($15 per square foot versus around $170) and to expand you can simply
add new units. They are also usually exempt from the health & safety regulations that apply to permanent indoor sites and will be easier to get
planning permission as they are not permanent structures.

The setup costs for such a secured data centre site with a 63MW main power transformer, 16 distribution transformers (2 per container), cabling,
switching, protection and 8 containers (with inbuilt 12v supplies) each capable of hosting 2100 s9 sized miners (or equivalent volume) would run to around
$3.9 - $4.2 million, the main transformer runs at 80% of full load and is capable of powering 16 containers. At this scale it's entirely possible to offer
power to single unit (1.5kw) users at around 4.5 - 6 cents per kWH, if there are enough of them ie around 16,000. The rates include 2 x 10Gb/sec leased line
internet connections and 2 technicians available 24/7, the data centre would take 9 months to reach operational status. Assuming difficulty increases at 2%
per month and that the bitcoin price remains at $600, an S9 installed in the centre in July 2017 at a network rate of 2250PH would pay for it's purchase price
($1600 - no power supply would be needed) in about 15 months at 6 cents per kWH and 13 months at 4.5 cents. I know there's shipping, import duty etc but
I'll cover ways to minimise that later.

Financing such a venture is another matter altogether although there is a good opportunity here for a forward looking company thats willing to swap margin
for volume. This centre could host older equipment that been paid for and extend it's working life, there's also the possibility that miners could buy into
a contractual agreement that gives them a long term guarantee that power will be available for them at a fixed amount above the actual cost price.

Comments?

Good riddance, along with the whole ethereum cocept it's one of the dumbest ideas every dreamt up by yet another bunch of talentless, greedy opportunists.

Just to avoid any confusion I'm assuming you mean big chip = lots of pipelines, so more hashing power, small chip = less etc. You are not referring to the process node or feature size, ie 40nm, 28nm and so on? If it's the latter, sorry for butting in. If it's the former most of the asic chip designs have tended to be smaller rather than larger, the logic goes that you have a better chance of avoiding defects on the silicon wafers if you have smaller chips, and even you do hit one it's a smaller and less costly chip thats becomes useless. Bigger chips do have other things on their side but there are valid arguments for both points of view, personally my view is that if Intel and others can routinely make incredibly complex chips of 250 mm² with very high yields, then making a 120 - 150 mm mining chip with simple, repeated circuitry should be relatively simple.

Indeed, especially if you use it to power your quantum computer (snigger)

No one is going to be seeing a 7nm miner in the next 3-4 years, that's almost certain (assuming Bitcoin is still around then) because it's still at the prototyping stage, the process has to be fully engineered and characterised and that will be a majot challenge in itself. Even when IBM or thr others start taking orders it'll be for chips that really, really need the density and/or power characteristics. The NRE's wll initially be truly horrific.

As for some of the comments about devices with lots of 'core' (or more likely pipelines) it's no more difficult to make a big chip with lots of them than a small chip with few, there is such a thing as Designing for Manufacturability which a lot of chip designers seem to ignore just as they ignore the importance of proper product engineering at the back end. Chip design is, or rather should be a team effort.

Just my views, please feel free to express yours.

Nope, they're just opportunists hoping to hop onto the Blockchain bandwagon, probably are not earning enough from their mining activities to feed all their hangers-on, sorry, executives. And why not? Virtually every 'application' for the technology is pure hokum, it's unbelievable how many organisations have fallen for this.

Definitely a case of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Just notice your post Sidehack. Nice to see someone thinking laterally but why not make this into a separate thread where it might attract more views and possibly more inputs to your questions?

For my two cents worth, forget about 20nm, it never delivered what it promised but good old 28nm is cheap and stable and there's plenty of design expertise at reasonable cost. As a quick answer to your question, to effectively create a system to give you 1 million 28nm production asic's at around twice the die size as Bitfury's 16nm (40 mm² as against 25 mm² I'm guessing) running at around 100Gh/sec at 10 watts at a 'sweet spot' would take about US$ 7 million, or $7 per chip. Of that around $4 million is for the actual packaged devices, the other $3 million is NRE and design fees. Making 2 million would work out at $5.50 per device. Hope this helps.

This paper is a load of garbage. SHA256 is not an algorithm that tolerates 'approximation' which, if the writers had bother to do their research, they would have realised very quickly. Every bit at every stage is cucial, you can't just leave ones out that you think don't matter.

What they may have been meaning is that by using different types of adder in the A and E calculations the die size could be made smaller, but at lot of folks got this message a long time ago.

So as well as you poor grasp of electronics you also don't understand that 'you' can apply to a group as well as an individual? I just quote your post in it's entirety as I couldn't be bothered editing out lots of bits.

How are you a 'creditor' - did you loan them money or are do they owe you goods that you paid for? Unless you are a shareholder, an entirely different thing to a creditor, then you don't have a say in how the company is run. The only exception to this would be where the company is in adminstration but even then it's the liquidator that calls the shots 99% of the time.

Anyone reading your recent posts might conclude that there is something very personal going on here between you and Spondoolies/Guy - did you perchance ask them for an 'evaluation' SP50 and they said no?