ASIC on scrypt would just destroy the purpose of its invention, to make it profitable for CPU users. So, if they produce in large quantity and starts selling them, scrypt would not be profitable for CPUs. I think we can pretty much reason out now that that's impossible to sustain. If it's profitable to mine on CPUs, then more and more people with CPUs will mine. This will continue to occur, raising the difficulty, until it becomes unprofitable for most people with CPUs to mine. Then only those people whose circumstances make them especially efficient miners, such as a very low cost of electricity, will find mining profitable. This is an inescapable economic reality. |
|
|
|
I understand that the video card has to go through the process to find the work itself. But couldn't that process happen with a little nudge in the right direction by the ASIC -- in theory? No. There is no "nudge". You either have a solution or you don't. When you know you have a solution, you are done. If you don't know you have a solution, your work is of no use because it's millions of times more likely not to be a solution than to be a solution. The "work" is in determining if you have a solution or not. The ASIC is 'dumb' in the sense that it's getting the answer through hardware bit flips at extremely fast speeds. It gets the answer, but has no work to show for how it got it. The answer is the work to show for how you got it. The whole point of the design is that work is needed to produce the answer, thus the answer provides proof that work was done. I'm merely suggesting that it might be able to pass that result to the video card, and the video card could make some use of it.
Until you have a useful result, you don't have a useful result. Once you have a useful result, you are done. |
|
|
|
My guess is that "user 2" would be able to spend the bitcoins on "add1" even though the public key is different than the one already used for this address. Do anyone know? Yes, that's correct. The test is whether the hash is correct, and it is. |
|
|
|
|
I paid June 25 and went to "In Progress" several days ago. My guess is that they just set all orders that were supposed to be shipped out by the 15th to "In Progress". Does anyone know what the pay date is of the orders that are being shipped out now?
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, ASIC bitcoin miners won't work on scrypt because they do not provide a 'proof of work' for the solved block. What if the ASIC found the solution, and then passed that solution on to the video card so that the video card can generate that necessary proof of work? In other words, couldn't they be made to work in tandem? No. There is no distinction between "that solution" and "that necessary proof of work". They are the same thing. The proof of work is that you found the solution, proving that you did the work needed to find it. The whole scheme works because, and only because, the proof of work is inseparable from the block and transactions that are solved. |
|
|
|
Noo, just out of curiosity, what would happen if a person with say a 500GHS SHA asic pointed it towards a scrypt curreency. Probably nothing. But if so, what does it do? Cause stales for others, or anything at all.
Same thing that would happen if a person without a 500GHS SHA ASIC pointed it towards an scrypt currency. The only thing a 500GHS SHA ASIC does is SHA and whether you do SHA or don't do SHA makes no difference with an scrypt currency. SHA is not scrypt, so it works the same on an scrypt currency as anything else that's not scrypt, such as nothing at all, or addition, or whatever. |
|
|
|
So if lets say a simple a class microhip (thats used in phones pci cards dvd players etc) ok its NOT a miner asic it cant do GH/s on one chip but it can put out lets say 90 Mh/s on its own and costs lik 10$ or much lower (if you order in big quantities) consider ordering 250 of them (= 2500$ -if we dont count the discount caused by the wholesale type of order- running at ~25GH/s)
that means that after 12 months you will have 3000 usd networth = 500 usd profit
But if there are some chips that do even better MH rates and/or you capitol is bigger then its totaly worth it.
No, it's not worth it. You'd lose a ton doing this. If you were right, buying my ASICMINER blade at $500 would be a steal. After all, it does over 10GH/s. You're suggesting that 90MH/s at $7 is a deal. If so, 10GH/s (over a hundred times more) should be a steal at $500. So why are there ASICMINER blades not selling for even $400? https://www.bitmit.net/en/item/59882-10x-new-asicminer-blade-10-7ghash-lowest-price-on-bitmitLook, that's 320 real ASICs, honest to goodness 100% optimized for Bitcoin hashing, more efficient than any general-purpose CPU, GPU, or DSP, fully hooked up and ready to mine for just $3,100 or so. What you're missing is one very, very simple fact -- only the very latest generation of ASICs are profitable. Anything less than the very best costs more to power than you can make on mining and wouldn't make a profit even if you got it for free. I have an ASICMINER blade behind me. I just recently shut it off because it costs more to power it than it makes in mining. It has 32 honest-to-goodness ASICs, fully optimized for Bitcoin mining. They're just not the very latest technology, and so even though I've already paid for them and already have them, I can't make money on them. If you're right, put your money where your mouth is. Offer me $400 for my 32-ASIC blade -- it hashes at 13GH/s on a paltry 135W. You can't get anywhere near that with any general purpose hardware. |
|
|
|
but have you asked yourself why you just have ONE miner and not like 200 of them?
I am sure you asked yourself that and the answer is easy
1)you do not have money to buy more of them since they are rediculously expensive
2)even if you have the money to make a big investment by the time you will get the gear you pre-ordered (if you get it at all) it wont do crap or it will have a very considerable decrease of income... No, it's because even if they were free they wouldn't make money. I turned the one that I have off. The new generation of ASICs are so much more efficient than the previous generation that the difficulty has risen to the point where first generation ASICs cost more to power than the value of the Bitcoins they mine. So why not instead of buying like ONE rig that costs 5000 usd and does 2TH/s and will ship Q2 2014 not ordering like 1000 pieces 5$ each of industry available chips reporgram them and have them ready to mine TODAY at lets say 800 GH/s rate... and when difficulty is get higher with the profits that you accumulate from TODAY since the then buy some more chips that will be ready to ship at virtually the same day!!! Because that rig would be less efficient, and even the very most efficient rigs of just a year ago are barely profitable, if at all. The up front cost of the miner is irrelevant it if costs more to power it than it can make in mining. The key point is this -- the ASICs of a year ago, purpose built to be maximally efficient miners, are already too inefficient to be worth operating if you expect to make a profit. The ship has long ago since sailed on anything not purpose built to be a maximally-efficient Bitcoin miner. If $7 for 1/3 of an ASIC is a good deal, will you give me $672 for my ASICMINER blade? It has 32 ASICS. 32*3*7 = $672. All you need to do is plug it in, connect it to Ethernet, and it does 13GH/s. I'll even throw in a power supply. Oh, it mines about $2/day worth of Bitcoins and costs about that to power it. |
|
|
|
Obviously you are not so familiar with technology (ofcourse there is no problem with that) you consider audio chips graphic chips asics FPGAs x86 Processors as to be completely different things.. Right, I'm not familiar with technology. They all have things in common they do binary isntructions... their difference is their efficiency per chip at some instructions etc... Exactly! And mining with the very latest, very best technology is just *barely* efficient enough to be profitable *if* you are lucky. to transfere 10000 kilos of gold from lets say africa to USA what do you prefere? to order some fancy highspeed Jets that will need like 10 hours to do the delivery (which you have to wait a year to get manufactured and be available to you and cost like 10.000.000 usd ) or to use simple propeled one seat planes that will do the job in lets say 20 days but cost in total 5.000.0000 and are available right now. Right, now assume those fancy highspeed jets are just *barely* fast enough to get the job done on time. Good luck with the simple planes -- it will *never* work. I have an ASIC miner that I underclocked about a week ago and finally shut off today because the difficulty has risen to the point that it costs more to power it than the value of the Bitcoins it produces. I've already paid for the miner, I've already waited for it. Those are sunk costs, and it's not even profitable to keep it turned on. This is technology that was designed from the ground up to mine Bitcoins as efficiently as possible about a year ago. With people using the very latest technology in new designs made from the ground up to mine Bitcoins as efficiently as possible, trying to use anything not purpose built for mining is not even a "knife to a gunfight" idea, it's a "club to a nuclear war" idea. In about six months, even today's latest and greatest 28nm ASICs designed from the ground up for mining probably won't pay for the power it takes to run them. Even if you got such a miner for free, unless you had a really good way to get cheap power, you would lose money turning it on. Even your $7 for 1/3 of an ASIC makes no sense. You can get ASICMINER erupter blades for $300 now. They contain 32 ASICs with all the infrastructure needed to connect them. That's less than $10 for an actual ASIC which beats the hell out of $7 for 1/3 of an ASIC. And how can you possibly operate profitably with all the extra stuff not needed for hashing that you have to pay to power when even these ASICs are not, or perhaps just barely, profitable? This idea is unrealistic by at least one order of magnitude. |
|
|
|
Well it could make sense since one BFL asic chip for example costs 70$per piece if for example I could combine 10 audio chip at 7$each doing half or 1/3 the MH/s rate of a single bfl asic then It would be profitable buying like 1000 chips (which will lower the per chip price) spending a few more K for the board design and you have almost instantly mh power whenever you want to upgrade you have just to make a new order that will arrive in a mater of days maybe weeks at worse.. no 6-9+ waiting time. So why not use popcorn instead of an airplane since popcorn is so much cheaper? Because if you want to fly across the country, you want something that was designed to fly across the country. |
|
|
|
ONLY credit card via paypal ..ie cc has to be primary way you pay on paypal after 45days the cc plug is only way to get refund... (don't make my mistake wire xfer what I did with BFL) Just make sure you understand the consequences of doing this. You are telling your credit card company that PayPal didn't perform when they did all, and only, what you asked them to do. This can seriously damage your relationship with PayPal. You could wind up joining me in the PayPal Lifetime Ban club. (We have cookies, so at least there's that.) |
|
|
|
I mean even if their MH/s rate is low because of their low clocks they are so cheap so maybe they have better MH/$ rate and if their compined into racks of lots of them together then they sound like a good investment.. needless to talk about their imediate availability If you're serious, this can't possibly work nor could it possibly make any sense. ASICs are made using the very latest technologies to mine as optimally as humanly possible and you need incredible luck to even break even with them. How can you come anywhere close using technology 8 years old that was never meant to hash? |
|
|
|
300X order, paid July 11, in progress.  One more week to ship??  My order was paid June 25 and just went to "in progress" yesterday. |
|
|
|
not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.
You oppose the use of judgment? when its poor judgment yes So are you saying that only topicality should be enforced and anything that's actually about an alternative cryptocurrency should be allowed? If so, I think I agree with you. |
|
|
|
I know that two people generating the same address (maliciously or accidentally) is about as likely as the Sun and the Moon instantaneously switching places, destroying the solar system. But, if it were to happen, is there any way to detect it so it can be observed?
No known method. Any such mechanism operating on real physical computers would have a failure rate much higher than the probability of a real collision, so the vast majority of detected collisions would be so likely to be false positives, it wouldn't even be worth investigating them. |
|
|
|
not a fan of btc scrypt and not trollin (this time) but do feel its pretty bad taste to pick and chose what scamcoins you allow threads on or don't.
You oppose the use of judgment? |
|
|
|
Any way we can identify this?
Stop one fan for a few seconds and see which temperature goes up. |
|
|
|
How can a new transaction in the beginning ever get an approval rate over 50% if each server first needs to see the transaction approved by some other servers in his UNL?
Before each consensus round starts, servers collect and forward transactions. When the consensus round starts, each validator makes an initial proposal based on what transactions they saw before the consensus round and what transactions didn't make it into the previous consensus round. There's a window with a minimum length of two seconds to give validators a chance to make an initial proposal. Validators can then look at the set of initial proposals to see how many validators are participating in this consensus round and how many of them vote yes or no on each transaction. They use this information to update their proposals to avalanche to consensus. A server only includes a transaction in his own proposals, if he sees the transactions in other server's proposals. But if nobody starts inlcuding it in his porposals, it never will get a 50% approval rate.
What am I missing here? Each server's initial proposal is based on its independent opinion of which transactions should go in the consensus set. https://ripple.com/wiki/Ledger_Cycle |
|
|
|
What problems is Bitcoin facing?
1) Utility beyond itself and the mining scene? 2) Mainstream adoption? 3) Money cartel and captured Government attack if 1) & 2) are ever achieved or even likely? 4) Network security and incorruptibility after mining stops? Well, 1 and 2 are major problems Bitcoin actually faces today. I certainly wouldn't say that they aren't getting enough attention or are being ignored by the community. That's what people are talking about. 3 and 4 are potential problems. Right now, they're more of academic interest, since no such threat is imminent, Trying to work out specific solutions that could actually be implemented is probably not particularly useful since we don't know what versions of these threats Bitcoin will actually face. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
