GPU's heh?   

They have many many wallets disabled at the moment, not just ASN.
It happens every so often when they have a wallet server on maintenance.

See, and you can keep tweaking those numbers. I'm only running 4 threads, my i7 is not even the very latest generation model, it is at standard clocks, and my hashrate is 465 kh/s. I have high electricity costs, and yet it is profitable for me, if I chose to simply dump ZRC > BTC > FIAT (which I don't).

So if it's profitable for me, why would it not be profitable for someone with a rack of recent servers, probably paying a lot less for kW/h?
If I had such a rack of servers, I would certainly mine with them. This is valid for someone that will immediately dump the coins, as well as for someone that just wants to hold them long term...

Point being: none of this implies the use of GPUs or CPUs... Adding such big hash to the network, only shows that it is someone with large computing resources at hand. Heck, I could own half the nethash for a few hours if I really wanted to spend a couple of BTC on server rentals. I am not saying that would be the smartest thing to do     

Edit: I see othe just posted how many spot instances it would take. There you go!

That's utter nonsense. Case in point: My i7 with 4 threads, mines faster than an older Xeon pair (8 cores total) that I have here. The Xeon's are 130w TDP each, while the my i7 is at about 65w. What conclusions can you possibly get from comparing apples to oranges?

Edit: In case it was not particularly obvious, or for the lazy @ math: My i7 has greater hashrate than the Xeons, and yet it consumes 4 times less electricity...

Miner developers take shit from all directions all the time, and usually with no reward or appreciation at all for what they do, so it's not surprising that one's patience runs out now and then. 

Anyhow, I don't think the big farmer is running GPUs. It just does not make any sense at all to be rushing in with 30% nethash, and knowing that this will likely cause the dev team to publish the GPU code. A smarter individual (with either CPUs or GPUs) would be limiting his hashrate to be 5 or 10% of the nethash at most, so that difficulty does not change much, and he would just take place as one of the bigger miners.
I'm just guessing though...

I vote for GPU miners being made public, and by public I mean I would have access to them and no1 else. 
Happily mining away with an i7 at the moment, as my experience is that GPU miners will just come on board to erode the price real quick. The vast majority of GPU farms could not care less for what they are mining, they will instantly cash out for BTCs. Careful what you wish for 

It certainly looks like AI has caught the media attention recently!
I figure this will be a booming industry for the next few years. One of the things that caught my eye with Sapience/XAI, is precisely the fact that it combines the explosive potential of AI, along with the fundamental backbone of all crypto currencies (aka, blockchain).

An idea that had floated on the cudaminer thread long time ago, was to have a cuda-only pool of sorts, with fees going to the (now) ccminer developers. If it was possible to couple an official cuda pool along with optimized/locked miner versions, I'd be all over it (with my massive 2x750TI rig!) 

Would be really awesome if someone pulled this off.
I have no technical skills to contribute much, but I can be the coffee guy. 

Just got word that nicehash also added Qubit. Looks to relatively cheap at the moment, though I guess the price will start going up with demand  
Happy mining!

Edit: Quoting previous poster as it deserves not to slip by unnoticed as I caused a page change 

If I understood correctly, the pool exploit that was just uncovered, only affects the honest miners that are on the same pool as a dishonest one. As the dishonest miner is exploiting the pool by boosting his share count, he is getting an unfair percentage of the overall reward distribution whenever a block is found on that pool.

The underlying point is that overall nethash should not be impacted at all, and neither is the total hashrate for any pool that was being exploited. It is only the internal distribution of shares within each pool that would be crooked, and penalizing the honest miners.

Can one of the pool ops confirm if my understanding is correct? Thanks!

My tiny rig is available again, little price boost as the rewards keep increasing and so does rental demand
(there's an ongoing issue with some pools, disabled the rental for the time being)
Awesome Qubit rig with more hashrate than advertised!

There's some other one available now at slightly lower cost, but it's a biggie at 90MH.
Happy mining!

EDIT: If anyone wants and OTC deal, I might sell up to 30K ASN for a decent offer. I estimate that this should be a way better deal for the buyer than a straight up rental! PM if interested, or ping me on Freenode IRC (same nick as here).

Errr.. It was cheaper, and the reason you don't see the lower price, is that it was rented a few minutes ago... 
Will free up again in little under 12 hours, unless the current renter extends! Happy Mining!

Added a cheap (though tiny) Qubit rig to MiningRigRentals. Go nuts 

Hey there SkyValeey.

The number from the OP, states the number of coins generated during the initial Proof-of-Work stage. The latter number from CoinMarketCap, accounts for all coins in existence today, which adds all of the Proof-of-Stake rewards since the XQN was launched.

Cheers!

Hats off to you captain presstab, for zero hesitation in the face of such a monstrous coding challenge!
Please sign me up for beta testing 

I don't think the troll deserves another quote, so there's that.  

On the other hand, I did like the screens that the dev posted, and for me, it's not about any form of hype or sense of pumping, it is excitement for the project and the things we might achieve as a collaboration, driven by solid development leadership as well as community engagement. The screens simply highlight a few potential use cases for Sapience/XAI.

This project is just taking off the ground. While development pace has not perhaps been awesome, it's been really good, in my view. I'd imagine that if the crowd fund had raised ten times more more funds, it would be much easier to get (read: hire) more people and resources to code on the platform and progress even faster. As we know, the crowd fund raised modest funds, and so expectations should take all of that into consideration.

The flipside of all this is extremely positive, looking long term.
The crowd fund is far into the past now, and development continues to be as committed as ever, with more meaningful discussions taking place as we move forward. Just look at the recent examples of people looking at Sapience/XAI as candidate platform for their needs, one a real world industrial application, another one a specialized asset token.

If we all collaborate to spread word about Sapience/XAI, we can increase the audience many times over. This wider audience is vital. Each new person to join the community, is a potential investor, or a potential app consumer, or a potential app developer, or any combination thereof.
To complete the line of thought, that's why I really liked the screens!

I, XAI
^{and you?}

All variations are certainly possible. We can have cases where a single individual is both the programmer & consumer, as well as we can have cases were a user hires someone else to code a purpose-built application for them. In the latter scenario, the user might be the application consumer, but there could also be instances where the application consumers are external parties.

I estimate that the asset market will be an important milestone, in that it will enable additional business models, by issuing specific tokens for the use of certain services or applications. In any case, even as right now, one can specifically hire one's own Sapience nodes for a certain application contract, and thus the availability of the respective application is under control. The application developer already has all the necessary tools to set whatever availability boundaries he desires.


I'd have to imagine that such a UI is a possibility, but I'm guessing that it will be a relatively distant target for now. Similar efforts can be observed by navigating the various programming learning platforms that have become popular over the past couple of years (i.e, Code.org). The few UIs today that can really claim "anyone can build a simple application", are extremely limited in terms of what kind of apps can be produced.
I would say that there's definitely steps taken towards making the development process easier, and that's exactly the case of the embedded LUA console. It allows one to quickly check for the interactions between the Sapience network and a code snippet, prior to wide deployment.

I, XAI
^{and you?}

I don't think there's such a thing as a 'stupid question'! It's great to see the debate moving towards the technical merits and brainstorming about the potential applications for Sapience/XAI.

Nodes: Nodes are the participating Sapience wallets. Each wallet owner makes the decision to have some of his computing resources on the Sapience/XAI network, and the wallet owner can even set his own fee/charge metrics (or simply use the default values).

Rewards: So while the nodes can settle their target fee/charge metrics, the distributed application owner has the decision of which nodes to hire for any given task. When starting a distributed application, the process is roughly as follows: a) app owner queries nodes for a service contract, b) nodes respond with resource availability & fee metrics, c) app owner picks his choice selection of nodes to hire for the task, accepting the selected service offers.

The native cost for the network operations is Sapience/XAI, but I'm guessing that as the asset market gets released, there might be alternative tokens for subsets of functionality or node groups. This scheme allows for cost effective and redundant distribution of data and computing services over the Sapience/XAI network.

Some of the most interesting use cases, are a result of the particular combination of a deep learning framework (machine learning) along with the peer to peer network. Such services are usually only available through high paying contracts with big data companies.

One important outcome of this operational logic, is that a certain Sapience/XAI demand will get established over time, as Sapience/XAI is used to pay for services and contracts on the network. The demand and valuation should gravitate towards the utility value of the services provided. This is specially interesting as it stands for an actual use case: a meaningful real world application (more correctly, many real world applications) supporting - and supported by - the Sapience/XAI blockchain.

I, XAI
^{and you?}

Isn't it always quiet before the storm?  

I do feel that there's a very short attention span around these forums lately, or perhaps it was always the case.
Personally, I'm staking my Sapience/XAI stash and eagerly waiting for the next testnet release. I think one of our next action items could be to work out a way to attract more contributing developers. Perhaps a contest where people submit their own apps running on Sapience/XAI? I'm not sure we're ready yet for such type of contributions, but just food for thought anyhow...

Cool idea biggeemac.

Plenty of good stuff ahead, thanks for the update CedricQuotient!

The recompute button is used to forcibly refresh the graphical view whenever you adjust the range of blocks to display. This is just a cosmetic feature, has no correlation at all to staking performance or parameters.

The way that you have split your coins seems overly complicated (you could be using a single address), but should result in good performance. If I understood correctly, your starting point is with blocks of 2000 coins each, auto optimization is enabled and set to 618. Looks good.

Happy Staking!