Actually, your return on investment will be 1, since BTC in = BTC out.
Also, if you really believe in bitcoin you'll buy and then spend. The exchange rate may grow if supply exceeds demand because people are hoarding coins, but the economy as a whole will not because overall utility decreases. A healthy economy will have plenty of purchases of goods and services in bitcoin, and as that process becomes more mainstream and more vendors accept bitcoin in exchange for their various wares, everyone benefits. This doesn't really happen if all we do is hoard.
I think that pretty much boils down to semantics. Generally, when people speak of a return on investment they are speaking of the difference between what they put in and what they get out - just like you state. However, when people put 10 BTC into something and get the same 10 BTC out at the end of the investment, the usual response is an ROI of 0, not 1 - i.e. they made 0% on their investment. Anyway, if we're speaking strictly of BTC ROI, then you need only consider how many coins a miner will mine during its existence. All other factors (electricity, hosting, whatever) are irrelevant to the equation. Will that hardware produce more coins than it cost to purchase it? If yes, you've made positive ROI. Of course, it's naive to speak strictly in terms of BTC simply because there are indeed costs associated with the production of the coins by the miner - most notable among them is the electricity required to run the miner. Because, at least to my knowledge, there are no utility companies that currently accept payment in BTC, you must consider conversion of BTC to USD (or CAD, or GBP, or YEN, or whatever). This is where it becomes murky because you're effectively gambling. If you think that your hardware will produce more coins than it cost to purchase, inclusive of all associated fees to run the hardware, then you make the purchase. You're betting that the network difficulty won't rise too much and the value of BTC to fiat will increase. If you don't believe it will, but you do believe the value of the coin will increase, you buy and hold. |
|
|
|
I'm confused, so maybe you can help me understand. You stated: This seems interesting and probably posted in the wrong place. But in the interest of it maybe being beneficial to both of us, I'll make this offer to you and post it to keep things on the up and up.
I currently pay $1.67 per day for my SP20s. So I'd do $2.00 per day for each on a 90 day agreement for 5 units. During which time I will review the operations and dealings with your company and support. I would do the $399 option for the 5 units with OgNasty providing escrow during the 90 day period. At the end of the 90 day period if the terms have been met, I'll submit the additional $250 and have the units shipped to me. Upon receipt of the units, OgNasty would release the escrow.
Unfortunately we will not be able to lower our colocation costs at this time, currently you will have the PSU's covered the entirety of the contract, onsite personnel if needed. Our price is under $90 per unit per month which is one of the best prices that can be found for such a short contract, you can do only a 15 day contract. The only way you would be able to get 90 day escrow would be to wait for credit card processing, I apologize however escrow will need to be released within 24-48 hours of delivery of goods, you will receive the unit serial numbers and the units will be mining within 24 hours of payment. Yet, just a few posts later you state: Interested in some/all of the units but would just buy and host in a more economical location.. If interested in selling them all please PM with a price and total quantity of all the units..
Please send a PM to start the conversation. Depending on length of time and number of units the colocation cost may be lowered.So, which is it? You can or you cannot negotiate on co-lo costs? |
|
|
|
|
347038 looks to be staying here...
|
|
|
|
thats my problem !
i dont know whats better... the machines are paid and are still working but every few day´s a little payout will be fine... a month without is a bad thing ...
I think you've answered your own question, then. Assuming just your own 70TH/s, you'd expect that to take just over 33 days to find a block at current difficulty. Remember, too, that difficulty will not remain static during that timeframe. Since you don't want to wait over 30 days, you probably don't want to be solo mining. |
|
|
|
Does anyone have info about how shares are calculated? I was thinking of raising the difficulty on my miners to lower network use, but I really need to understand shares first. I know it'll cause variance, I just want to know I wouldn't mess up my shares in the long run.
Payout changed due to difficulty yesterday.
0.0000000005355110 Last
0.0000000005271197 Current
----
Why do trolls have so many newbie accounts?
Since your query wasn't answered... You've shown the value of a share. That's easy to calculate - take current block reward and divide it by current network difficulty. Now you have the value of a difficulty 1 share. When you are mining and you up your difficulty to 1024, 2048, etc... you are only submitting shares of that difficulty. Each of those shares is equivalent to that many difficulty 1 shares. At the end of the day, when a block is found, the pool looks at how many difficulty 1 shares you've submitted, multiplies that by the value of each share and voila - you've got your payout. Obviously I've simplified it a bit, but that's the general idea. So technically, pools are slightly lowering your shares by setting up default difficulties? Say the miner puts out a nice downward curve of shares based on difficulty. Lots of 1s, less 512s, fewer 1024, etc and the setting is for 1024. Aren't you losing out on all the 1023s and lower as shares or is that just the price of mining to not flood the pool? Or does the share calculation factor in all the lost shares that were too small? I see default difficulty swinging throughout the day, and am trying to figure if it's a good idea to lock it in at the high end. My S3 that I overclocked is preforming better and more stable than it was before, and now I have it locked on a diff of 512. It's always over 500gh/s average for the hour now. Just need to know if the stock s5s would benefit. You don't miss out on anything - you just submit fewer shares of a higher difficulty. Think about it like this... your S3 runs about 500GH/s. That means it's trying 500 billion times a second to solve a hash. It takes approximately 2^32 attempts (4294967296 hashes) to get a difficulty 1 share. So, your S3 would expect to find 116.415 difficulty 1 shares each second. No pool is going to allow you to submit that kind of load, which is why pools either force you into a static share difficulty or use vardiff to determine it for you. If you up your difficulty to say 512, you're saying "I'm only going to care about a difficulty 512 share". When you submit that to the pool, the pool says, "hey, you submitted 512 difficulty 1 shares. I'll credit you for 512 shares." |
|
|
|
I see lots of people getting the EVGA power supply, plus the G2 has a 10 year warranty on it and is less expensive than the RM1000 model. Anyone have or use the EVGA G2 1000 watt model?
What I can't find is the small adapter that you plug in so you can turn it on without the main board. With the RM1000 all I used was a 14pin plastic adapter with two pins added, but not entirely sure what this EVGA G2 needs. It has a 28 pin power connector, so having a hard time finding that little adapter you would plug in.
EVGA 1300 G2 comes with the adapter in the box - no need to do the paperclip trick. I'm quite sure the EVGA 1000 does as well. The Corsair RM 1000 does not - I know, I've got the PSU. In terms of performance, both have been solid for me. My personal preference is the EVGA, but there's really no scientific evidence behind that assertion. I've got 2 EVGA 1300s and 1 Corsair RM1000. The EVGAs run 3 S3s each, the RM1000 runs 2 - it used to run 2 S1s. The RM1000 has been running non-stop since May of last year. The EVGAs have been running non-stop since June/July. |
|
|
|
Yeah I'm pretty excited about the prospect of cluttering up the blockchain with masses of IoT traffic. I really hope my internet-connected washing machine doesn't spend all my coins on frivolous purchases.</sarcasm eyeroll='true'>
Hey... that new, fancy soap pod is just what your washing machine needed! It knows better than you do what is frivolous and what isn't... so sit back, relax and enjoy the beginnings of servitude to our machine masters  |
|
|
|
calculator say 1 bitcoin a day on average, so a block in 25 days on average
i would try it, everything that can get you a block in less than a month it's worth trying
1 BTC a day is pretty good if thats what the calculation say. But sites like cloudminr only charge 1 BTC to purchase 1THS/s . Can they offer such returns so soon ? Wouldn't you be ROI'ing in a week by that ? Um... huh? He's got anywhere between 70 and 100 TH/s of gear available and wants to know if he should solo mine or stick to a pool. Assuming he was going to buy that same hashing power at 1 BTC / 1TH/s, that means he's putting out 100 BTC up front just to do so to earn 1.06 BTC a day. Without even factoring in the maintenance charges your typical cloud mining provider charges, he's well over a week's ROI. I'm not really sure where you got your numbers... |
|
|
|
Does anyone have info about how shares are calculated? I was thinking of raising the difficulty on my miners to lower network use, but I really need to understand shares first. I know it'll cause variance, I just want to know I wouldn't mess up my shares in the long run.
Payout changed due to difficulty yesterday.
0.0000000005355110 Last
0.0000000005271197 Current
----
Why do trolls have so many newbie accounts?
Since your query wasn't answered... You've shown the value of a share. That's easy to calculate - take current block reward and divide it by current network difficulty. Now you have the value of a difficulty 1 share. When you are mining and you up your difficulty to 1024, 2048, etc... you are only submitting shares of that difficulty. Each of those shares is equivalent to that many difficulty 1 shares. At the end of the day, when a block is found, the pool looks at how many difficulty 1 shares you've submitted, multiplies that by the value of each share and voila - you've got your payout. Obviously I've simplified it a bit, but that's the general idea. |
|
|
|
Let's say we abandon the idea of a share chain altogether. How can we decentralize and make trust-less the work a miner has done and the payments the miner is owed upon block find for that work?
Interesting thought, were you thinking something like a weighted share pool where shares are accepted by the pool by consensus and then expire based on weight? How could you trust that each node accepts shares it should without a chain? Exactly my line of thinking, and you've raised exactly the question that has stumped me... how to ensure that each/every node knows of the work of miners on other nodes. Using PoW blockchain technology like the share chain is the obvious answer, and it's what forrestv did in his work. Unfortunately, the solution just isn't scalable using standard PoW blockchain tech. Maybe some other kind of proof? For example, PoS coins certainly don't rely upon massive hash rates to support them or their blockchains. I'm not sure a PoS approach would work, it was just an example... but could we devise some kind of proofing algorithm that would allow work to be broadcast and shared across nodes? |
|
|
|
I don't know that concentrating on how to accumulate and distribute the smaller "dust" payouts is the most critical item to address. I agree it's an issue that would arise; however, it's only going to rear it's head once the variance problem is solved. Right now, the minimum share value in p2pool is higher than the dust threshold. There's even code in p2pool as it is currently written to ensure you get more than a dust payout: if expected_payout_per_block < self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD:
desired_share_target = min(desired_share_target,
bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target((bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(self.node.bitcoind_work.value['bits'].target)*self.node.net.SPREAD)*self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD/block_subsidy)
)
It's certainly an interesting paradox. Effectively we are saying the share difficulty must be lowered so that smaller miners do not feel the effects of p2pool's inherent variance. However, the code also has to say that if you're going to receive a dust payout, increase your share difficulty so you don't - which means you're right back at the high share difficulty causing the variance for the small miners. Agreed, but say in a re-write you could increase efficiency 10x, and 10x the # of shares in the chain (that may be optimistic), now you have a chain that can support many more smaller miners, but need a method to address the dust payouts... Edit: The only way I know to fix the variance issue is to grow global p2pool hashrate. Increasing global pool hash rate serves to help mitigate variance at a pool level, not a miner level. Yes, we'd expect the pool to find blocks more frequently, but now we're faced with the higher and higher share difficulty because the hash rate has increased. As you stated, even if we could become 10x more efficient - which would basically mean going from 30 second share time to 3 second share time - this is only a bandaid. And, at 3 seconds a share, you're going to start running into a ton of orphans and rejects as latency between miners/nodes/network plays a more significant role. Let's say we abandon the idea of a share chain altogether. How can we decentralize and make trust-less the work a miner has done and the payments the miner is owed upon block find for that work? |
|
|
|
I don't know that concentrating on how to accumulate and distribute the smaller "dust" payouts is the most critical item to address. I agree it's an issue that would arise; however, it's only going to rear it's head once the variance problem is solved. Right now, the minimum share value in p2pool is higher than the dust threshold. There's even code in p2pool as it is currently written to ensure you get more than a dust payout: if expected_payout_per_block < self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD:
desired_share_target = min(desired_share_target,
bitcoin_data.average_attempts_to_target((bitcoin_data.target_to_average_attempts(self.node.bitcoind_work.value['bits'].target)*self.node.net.SPREAD)*self.node.net.PARENT.DUST_THRESHOLD/block_subsidy)
)
It's certainly an interesting paradox. Effectively we are saying the share difficulty must be lowered so that smaller miners do not feel the effects of p2pool's inherent variance. However, the code also has to say that if you're going to receive a dust payout, increase your share difficulty so you don't - which means you're right back at the high share difficulty causing the variance for the small miners. |
|
|
|
That last block is an orphan  2nd orphan block since the pool started. Seems like the pool doesn't realise it's an orphan yet. I'll fix that shortly. Whoever stole that block also solved 346914. Quick 50 BTC. Poor little orphans, someone should find them a wallet to call home.  So what's an orphan anyways? An orphan is a block that loses the race to be accepted by the majority. It happens when 2 miners submit a block solution at or near the same time. Both get added to the chain. Eventually one wins the race. It stays on the chain. The loser becomes the orphan. |
|
|
|
Case in point... after the 225% block the pool found another one after only 27.04%. The more blocks the pool finds in the 500% (~60 hours) timeframe, the more you as a miner will make for your shares. That's the gamble with PPLNS pools. Good luck streaks reward the miners. Bad luck streaks cost the miner. I think Kano says it best here: it's your shares that get rewarded when we find a block, not a hash rate.
When you find a share, that share lasts N time (give or take a bit because Kano's pool actually is a touch more than N typically). For every block the pool finds during that time, the share is paid. The higher your hash rate, the more shares you have that get paid during that N time. So, pool finds 1 block? You get paid once. Pool finds 100 blocks? You get paid 100 times. |
|
|
|
Ok, so now that the block finished with 225% and I stayed in the whole time at or above the normal TH, does that mean the payout should be 225% of the normal @100% lock, right?
Nope... That's PPS. In that payout scheme you are paid for every share you submit. In PPLNS you get paid for N shares. So if a block takes 10% or 1000% you get the same. |
|
|
|
My first block was 337351 that I found on ck's solo pool.
Other block was 339342 found on aTg's solo pool.
Very nice! How much hash you got? First block was 10 TH/s and the second was 3 TH/s. Congrats!!! Makes we want to point my ants at the solo pool and let them rip. Not like they were earning anything on p2pool anyway  Then I remember that the only BTC block I've found was on p2pool with an S1 last year... EDIT: I actually do have some hash pointed to CK's solo pool... 5 U2 sticks. No luck so far |
|
|
|
Unfortunately for us home miners, the best current gear can only be found second hand. SP20s and S5 are out of stock from the manufacturers. ....
Where have you been? S5's are back in stock (shipping 30th March and 9th June), and had 2 price increases already! LOL... my mistake then. When I checked yesterday/day before I swear they weren't on the site. Carry on And to keep this somewhat on topic... it's over 200% in here... |
|
|
|
You guys are blowing my mind. Why didn't I get into this 2 years ago. :Banghead:  Ahh... the beauty of hindsight . Like Phil, I've made some good investment decisions and some spectacularly poor ones as well. Hardware-wise, I've done well. All of my gear has more than made back its cost. Renting hash power, just as a pool's luck turns exceptionally poor... yup, managed to get right in on that. Expect to find a block a day and only see 1 in 14 days will really burn through the BTC when you're renting loads of gear to try to make a bit of coin. Sometimes you win... and others you don't. Unfortunately for us home miners, the best current gear can only be found second hand. SP20s and S5 are out of stock from the manufacturers. Maybe you'll get lucky and find a good deal on some... or you can take your chances with the older stuff like the S3s. Point is, we're kind of in a holding pattern. The only reason I've still got my S3s plugged in is because the network difficulty has not really gone up too much since November. Last summer, everyone was predicting constant huge spikes in difficulty... if you tried to give any ROI projections using a number under 10%, people just laughed at you. I'd love to see some more gear made with the home miner in mind, but I don't know how much, if any, will be forthcoming. Of course, I could be completely wrong and somebody's working on a nice, efficient miner for the home user right now... and that's part of the fun of this whole adventure |
|
|
|
|
SP-Tech certainly seems to be focusing their efforts on industrial-scale hardware, rather than home consumer hardware. Density, power efficiency, etc. If you're a home miner and want their gear, they're offering the partnership with Genesis Mining. I really don't see them creating another SP20-like device, which is too bad because it's such a fine piece of kit.
|
|
|
|
So I have a KNC Super Jupiter that runs at 1Ths I had this for about 3 weeks now on Nicehash and before making a shelve relocation
I have looked on the basic KNC screen.*(did not took a photo at that time ouch) and saw it has found 7 blocks so far running 24/7
Does this means that if the miner was running solo it would be 7 blocks all mine??? or the part of work I was given on the pool
was lucky enought that my miner found these blocks???
you can see now that I have restarted the miner the number on found blocks is 0
running it
The hash you submitted for the work you got from the pool that solved the block would not have been a solution to any other block (i.e. a block of work you are attempting to submit on your own). In other words, just because your miner found a block on a pool does not mean your miner would have found that block solo and awarded you the entire 25 BTC. EDIT: if you were renting your gear, the chances are very good whoever rented it was mining some other SHA-256 coin with a far lower difficulty than BTC, and hence why your miner reports the found blocks. For example, I rent out my S3s. Recently (the past few weeks) they've been rented out constantly and were mining some alt coin. Here's one of them:  . With a best share value of 57.6M, I certainly didn't find any blocks of BTC  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
