In fact, if 21 inc is already in possession of a significant % of bitcoin (and they might be since they were mining the last two years), and once millions of devices are distributed, they can run a promo whereas they distribute, say, 1-5% (or even more) of their stash in one go, like a super-faucet, giving few million people $1-5 in btc, thereby endowing a large market. With a proper ad campaign it would be an impressive feat.
This plan to increase btc adoption through mass advertising/giveaways sounds a lot like something Josh Garza would come up with. Here's my idea to increase adoption: what about creating services/features for bitcoin that people actually want to use? |
|
|
|
Considering their partnership with Qualcomm
We do not know the terms of that partnership. 21.co may use Qualcomm parts and/or expertise, rather than the other way around. Doesn't Qualcomm have a project for self-configuring public wifi routers? That may require some automatic micropayment system, so their interest in 21.co may be about that, rather than mining per se. Who said that Qualcomm is interested in the mining? This is not only about the mining. And yes, in order to integrate and use the micropayment system Qualcomm will put hashing cores into their chips and will try to get people used with the micropayment system so they can use it. Qualcomm will never do this unless they want to destroy their name brand in the name of a retarded experiment where their users can earn fractions of a penny over the lifetime of their several hundred dollar devices. Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
You are way off the track. Their plan is to use 35$ chips for USB charging hubs which are more expensive than regular phone chargers. The 8$ chip will be used in routers, gaming consoles etc. They will remain competitive by using the approach of many consumers paying the price who will not care about the double $/gh or the double $/kwh because the amounts are very small for them. We are talking about a few dollars, not about thousands. That's not how I understand it. According to the slides here: http://imgur.com/a/q9cbL it looks like the $35 includes a: $10 controller, $5 wifi connector, $5 hardware wallet, $5 case, $2 charger, $8 chip. (numbers obviously made up but you get the point) It doesn't say the $35 is a single chip unlike the $8. The $/gh is not important for the customer, but 21 inc. If 21 inc can breaks even with double the $/gh, then their competitors have doubled their money by that point. (assuming they have equivalent chips) The w/gh is important to 21 inc but only if their plan is not to steal electricity from ignorant users. If they intend on giving their users at least enough btc to cover electricity costs then they are essentially just paying residential rates for electricity while their competitors are paying industrial rates. I think Jtoomim is right when he said this isn't their real business plan. This is just their plan to suck in the VC money from people who can't/won't do the math so they can produce Intel 14nm chips to put in a massive 20MW datacenter. |
|
|
|
|
Phone chargers sell for ~$2 on Aliexpress so I'd guess they are made for ~$1. No sane company is going to add ~$20 worth of components and an $8 chip.
How can they possibly remain competitive while paying double the $/gh and double the $/kwh?
This sort of reminds me of when utorrent decided to include a hidden CPU miner in their software so they could earn dollars per day while costing their users thousands of dollars in electricity.
|
|
|
|
So far I have seen nothing to suggest that the 21Inc miners won't all be working with a single 21Inc pool, have you?
IIRC they specifically mentioned it would be mining on their pool in one of the articles. |
|
|
|
The one take away I have from Bitcoin mining is that it's important to realize that massive improvements in mining capacity, by themselves aren't really helpful. If you have a 1Megawatt facility, that's producing X Petahash, when you have the option of upgrading to new technology (i.e. more efficient), it's better to lower your electricity costs and still just produce roughly X Petahash. If you just replace all your mining gear and still burn 1Mwatt but produce 2X Petahash, it doesn't last very long. In a month, the difficulty adjustment has mitigated most of your improvement. However, if you still produce X Pethash, but you only burn 500KW, you are money ahead for longer.
That's not really true until you have a massive amount of hashrate. 5 PH/s at 0.5 w/gh earns $12,000 per day and costs $3,000 per day for electricity*. (profit = $1800/PHs/day) 5 PH/s at 0.25 w/gh would earn ~$12,000 per day and cost $1,500 per day for electricity. ($2100/PHs/day) 10 PH/s (adding 5 PH/s to the network) at 0.25 w/gh would earn ~$23,800 per day and cost $3,000 per day for electricity. ($2080/PHs/day) 50 PH/s at 0.25 w/gh would earn ~$106,900 per day and cost $15,000 per day for electricity. ($1838/PHs/day) *assuming $0.05/kwh So even if they added 45 PH/s after upgrading, they'd only be reducing their profit per PH/s by ~13%. |
|
|
|
At this point, I haven't heard any arguments that dissuade me from believing that 21's plans will enable widespread adoption of bitcoin. Whether that adoption results in BTC price improvement remains an open question.
Funny because I came to the opposite conclusion. I haven't seen any arguments that suggest 21 inc's plans WILL enable widespread adoption of bitcoin. In fact I can only see this causing people to hate bitcoiners more than they already do because it only reinforces the idea that everything bitcoin related is some sort of get rich quick scheme. |
|
|
|
Ok, not 2.5, but 2.3
Currently the most efficient miners are at around 0.5W/GH.
You do realize that might be the power consumption at chip level right? It might be at wall too, but we don't know. Just to be even more pedantic, we don't really know the accuracy of those values, nor any good way to verify them. I am personally doubtful about their Intel relationship, but there is also no way to confirm nor refute it. In my experience, Intel is VERY secretive about what they are doing in terms of chip fabrication and their plans. In my dealings with them, when you ask the time, they hesitate to decide if it's OK to disclose that information.  They are located in SF (where all the tech VC guys are) so I'd say it's definitely possible they are using Intel fabs. Powell pointed out that the "chip names" are most likely datacenter names in which case 0.22 w/gh at the transformer would be pretty damn impressive. Though if that's the case, I wonder why they only have ~5 PH/s if they've been one step ahead of the competition in terms of efficiency at least. |
|
|
|
Seems more like a company hoping to jump on the bandwagon. ASICMiner already had a liquid cooling setup, BitFury straight-out acquired Allied Control, and if you search these forums for 'novec', you'll find all sorts of outfits trying out 3M's liquid for cooling Bitcoin mining rigs. Moving miners to colder climates to begin with seems a more workable solution for now  Can't really say they are jumping on the bandwagon considering they've been in business before Allied Control or ASICminer even existed. (founded in 2009) IIRC Guy from Spondoolies-tech said some customers were using GRcooling systems for their SP3X's. Someone from the company made a few posts here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=376444;sa=showPostsThey claim it's better than 2-phase immersion cooling in every way but I doubt it. I think 2-phase can be much cheaper than 70 cents per watt and with better cooling density/efficiency. |
|
|
|
Looks like our internet detectives are back in full force with the launch of BTC.com.
Here is what you need to know :
1) Garza/GAW have lost the BTC.Com domain a while ago, it is being held in Escrow and the Bitcoinist owners are "renting" the domain name for three years, in order to turn it into a digital currency hub.
2) Of course Garza won't distance himself from anything that might give him a shred of credibility these days. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. He cannot be trusted, ever.
3) BTC.com has nothing to do with GAW, Garza, paycoin or any of their other shill operations.
Sometimes you guys make me wonder where you get all the information from, instead of engaging in a dialog with the people directly. Posting crap on this forum isn't going to get you one step closer to the truth unless some of the people involved in the operation (in my case, as a content creator) happen to stumble upon it.
Let me guess, Garza/Bitconist told you this so its 110% guaranteed factual? |
|
|
|
WTB LTCGear Accounts! Let's talk via PM! Thanks!
Is this some sort of charitable act because you feel bad for all the idiots who fell for this blatant ponzi and you have a shitload of money you don't want? Or is this some extreme denialism where you actually think this ponzi will spring back to life and pull btc + miners out of thin air to keep the scheme going? |
|
|
|
How? I dont get it yet. Is there a business model that could be worth it for bitcoin? If you mean those stations being miners then i think that specialized miners still will have an advantage in price. So i dont see why this might be related.
We know that Qualcomm invested in 21 Inc. We also know that they are interested in and are developing millions of micro-stations to boost their network coverage and bandwidth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2suMVsKow&feature=youtu.be The question is who is going to buy their micro stations or pay the electricity and why would they? It would be ridiculous for them to require one for their devices. Thus one can speculate that they may be interested in having 21 deploy millions of ASIC appliances for free where 2 extra chips are embedded one for mining BTC thus affording 21 to give away the appliances and the other own being a microstation for qualcomm where qualcomm subsidizes the price in exchange for cheaper bandwidth. IMO a better solution would be letting people buy those devices and offering cell service to anyone who pays btc. |
|
|
|
21 is looking for an exceptional hardware engineer with demonstrable experience in designing ASICs that have been shipped at scale and expert knowledge of industry-standard design tools. You'll work with both internal technical teams and external customers on integrating our technology into novel Bitcoin-related products. If it was another hardware Wallet (Already plenty of those and unlikely to attract so much VC capital so quickly) than the job specification wouldn't indicate integrating Internal ASIC technology in with multiple products and working with external partners. It's safe to assume that they are working on a mining chip because of this: "Working with cutting-edge process technologies (sub-32 nm)" There's no reason to use the cutting edge process tech for anything that is not used all the time. As for the statement you quoted, I don't think that's evidence that they are integrating their ASIC's in appliances. I think it's more likely that the "bitcoin-related products" are just miners and the "external customers" are chip integrators. (building their own farms using 21 inc chips) |
|
|
|
So The Register writes an article about an article from the Financial Times.
One of the opening lines from the FT is "All we do know is that the company, headed by Matthew Pauker, has raised more than $116m worth of venture funding"
There are no facts, no quotes from anyone from 21 or anyone who has a bleeding clue.
Their guesswork sounds like a pretty dumb idea. It's worth calling it a dumb idea if the people they're guessing about actually confirm it.
The jokester who made up this toaster thing is probably reading this thread and having a laugh. There is absolutely no way 21 inc raised $116 million based on the idea of putting miners in appliances that people use ~5 minutes per day. No chance in hell. I can't believe so many people actually believe this is their business plan. |
|
|
|
Why do you assert so many things as fact which are clearly speculation/rumors/guesses? I don't buy the ft.com article that this whole speculation-fest is based off of. There's no way that 21 inc will be putting ASICs in toasters. Anyone who thought of the idea for 10 seconds would realize that that's ridiculous. According to google, toasters work at 150+ degrees which is far above what ASIC's can handle. And how often do people toast? I toast maybe once a day at most for ~5-10 minutes. Putting an ASIC in a device that mines for 5-10 minutes every day will ensure that 21 inc never reaches 1% ROI before EOL. The only plausible device to put a miner in would be a router and as OGNasty and Philip pointed out, it could easily be worth it for 21 inc and the consumer. It deprecates entire industries — banking, identity, and escrow to name a few — freeing people to learn new things and solve new problems. But, it only works with mass participation (I would argue, through services like Bitmain, Spondoolies, HashPlex, and Blockchain.info, but I’m pretty biased). Where to start. First of all, BTC doesn't deprecate any of those industries, it complements them. If you think you can go without escrow/identities/banking, well then I take it you haven't been in bitcoinland for long, because if you had you'd have be scammed repeatedly with that line of thinking. Second, mining does not ONLY work with mass participation. Mining can, in theory, work with only a single participant. Third, how do those 4 companies have anything to do with solving this "problem" of centralization? Bitmain/Spondoolies are primarily focused on large scale customers/deployment, Hashplex appears to be overpriced hosting, and blockchain.info is just a shitty blockchain explorer with an unsecure wallet that is compromised every week or two. The most canonical example of how a large group of miners would protest a decision of the core-devs is to
fork the chain with their own rule-set
apply hashrate to the original chain and publish empty blocks or blocks filled with spam transactions (ramping up the difficulty in the process)
(if they have more than half the hashrate) re-write recent portions of the chain (stealing the coins published in those portions)
after the next difficulty adjustment, pull their mining power off the chain back onto their own chain, and let the hashrate that remains on the original chain work against a disproportionately high difficulty (dramatically slowing confirmation rates) It doesn't work that way. Having 51% of the hashrate does not allow them to steal coins. They can only exclude transactions up to the last checkpoint. The path of bitcoin mining is paved with the (still warm) graves of companies that have failed to do (1) successfully. See HashFast, Alydian, Cointerra, Aquifer, Biostar, BTC-Digger, BTC Garden, CLAM, DigBig, Hashra, iCoinTech, Land ASIC, TMR, and many, MANY more. To watch fires in progress see Butterfly Labs, Bitmine/Innosilicon, KNC Miner, ASICMiner, Black Arrow. Seems you haven't done your research here. BTCgarden wasn't a failure. They delivered every miner they sold, had practically zero customer complaints, and scammed nobody. Bitmine and Innosilicon are not the same company. Bitmine contracted Innosilicon to make the a1 chip. Once they made the chip Bitmine failed at getting it working in a miner for several months. Eventually the exclusivity agreement expired and competent Chinese manufacturers took over production of a1 based miners and put Bitmine out of business. Innosilicon if far from a "fire in progress". They were hugely successful with the a1, hugely successful with the a2, and are now working with LKETC to create the first 14nm ASIC. Profit = 3 kw * $0.06 x 24 hours x 30 days = $129.60 / month This is not actually the equation for mining profitability. There is no equation that will tell you how much you could earn using hardware with unknown specs, but if they made hardware that was 0.1 w/gh it would currently earn $0.94/hr/kw profit. (at $0.12/kwh) 21's model and why it doesn’t work Yes, their model (which you think you know) is completely flawed and they just happened to fool big time investors like Qualcomm into giving them $100+ million. /s How to not suck at bitcoin mining (an aside & shameless plug) For the foreseeable future, it makes a lot more sense to host our mining equipment. ( https://hashplex.com/) Very shameless indeed. You go on about how it doesn't make sense to mine at home due to expensive power costs, then recommend we ship our miners to a collocation company which charges ABOVE the average electricity rate in the US. (average is ~$0.12/kwh vs hashplex $0.1375/kwh) /rant |
|
|
|
No, I will not put you on ignore  Look, I just think this forum should continue to focus on exposing the GAW/Paycoin scam, and the PayCon joke is getting a bit old. Don't you think? You see Crestington has fucked up in the same way as the Dogecoin creators fucked up. He created a ridiculous paycoin parody coin (With the word CON in the name) and because he is a competent coder and has added some cool features he doesn't want it to be a joke any more. He wants people to start taking it seriously. Just like the creators of Dogecoin wanted suddenly wanted to be taken seriously when their "joke" unexpectedly went viral. The problem with this is, you have a picture of a dog on a coin. Same with PayCON. Nobody is ever going to trust a name like that are they? +1 It's becoming less funny and more shitcoin promotion spammy. |
|
|
|
Not a week goes by without some interesting drama. IMO the entertainment value provided by this whole debacle has far surpassed xpy's market cap. I commend philanthropist Phil for standing up to Garza, however it does look like he stole the coins and is now extorting him. Not the brightest idea to extort a serial extortionist (who is known to spend large sums of money on his extorting) who has your name/address/etc IMO. |
|
|
|
I disagree. Anarchy is Live and Let Live. Communism is WE think X therefore WE will FORCE YOU to do Y. In this case Y=YOU will lose your property. You strike me as an intelligent fellow, SM. Reading up on Anarchism and the other Isms would serve you well.
But isn't a fork a perfect example of "live and let live"? It doesn't take your property away. You can still trade with those who agree to trade with you (i.e. are on the same fork). Not finding someone to trade with is not Communism, it just means no one wants to trade with you. XPY's "voting" system is of course rubbish, it is about as anti-crypto as the rest of it, hyperinflation, pre-mine, etc. Intelligent, LOL. Nobody ever accused me of that  No. What you are describing deprives someone of the value of his property (if not the actual property). This is completely against the ideals of Anarchy. Again, I suggest reading on the subject. There's no law/fundumental that says people cannot affect the value of another persons property. That's just part of the free market. If you piss off a community so much that they create a hard fork removing your coins from their blockchain, you deserve a worthless stash of premine. To put it simply: Destroying all GAW/"non-profits" owned coins = bad. Creating a new coin/fork that exchanges all xpy to xpy2 (besides xpy owned by GAW/"non-profits") = not bad. |
|
|
|
+1 Thanks. It has always been like a cakewalk... Congratulations on completing six months of consistent payment. More like congratulations on being able to find enough idiots to perpetuate this halfassed ponzi for 6 months. It's not really true that payments have been consistent because there were a few weeks/months when they were laying ~1% of expected earnings. |
|
|
|
Why did Cryptsy implement a XPY/USD market weeks?months?, not sure how long ago i'd have to dig into it, when any reasonable person would have concluded XPY was dying? Who made that decision and why? Mr. Homero "Scam Muggle" Garbanzo had nothing to do with that?
We generally add a USD pairing to any coin that appears to be able to hold 1k volume if you look at the other pairing that is generally obvious. Just curious, in which states is Cryptsy licensed as a MTB? So not my lane and it gets a bit confusing but most of the US exchanges Cryptsy, Coinbase etc are identically licensed. Some states don't require it others have very vague open ended rules. So though that doesn't answer your question its not a cut and dry process as you can see reflected throughout the space. really ? “I’m willing to share,” said Ehrsam. His company has more than $100 million in venture capital and is one of the most heavily capitalized companies in bitcoin. He said it took Coinbase two years and $2 million to be compliant with half the states. http://www.bizjournals.com/newyork/news/2015/04/24/fred-wilson-silicon-valley-next-wall-street.html?page=allCoinbase essentially took exactly how we operate its nearly identical, and yes it took about 2 years and $2 million sounds about right. They make wondrous claims of FDIC insured deposits as well.....By that logic ours are as well but that is true for any US bank deposit. so, not really your lane, but Coinbase copied you. ok. got it. /s We were licensed before them...... well before. However copy is probably the wrong word your correct. All US exchanges basically operate the same to my knowledge. Pretty much contradicts everything you said about Cryptsy being licensed. Maybe you should inform your boss that unlike your shitcoin exchange, Coinbase, Circle, and some other exchanges have actually shelled out the big bucks to operate legally in certain states. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm understanding what everyone's raving about.
Is this anything more than an expensive battery in a nice case?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
