For most regular coins the premine amount/blockreward structure can bee seen through github/src/main.cpp and searching for the word "nsubsidy".

For example:

https://github.com/PIVX-Project/PIVX/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L1617

nHeight is the block number and subsidy is the blockreward.

So if you see this:

    if (nHeight == 0) {
        nSubsidy = 60001 * COIN;

That means that there's a 60001 premine at block 1 (0).

Pre ICOs and ICO bonuses like +20% in the first week and such are nothing but simple and dirty marketing tricks creating false exclusivity. People who mindlessly throw money at ICOs are suckers for crap like that.

Exclusivity, VIP statuses, bonuses and the propsect of quick cash. Sounds familiar? If no then visit basically any gambling site or poker client. ICOs are nothing but mindless gambling. Lazy people chasing the Bitcoin gold rush without any effort, just throwing money at ICOs to have a pull on the virtual slot machine.

It seems much more faster than 2% but I'm not sure because the 2nd and 3rd times I started it my rig hard froze both times because you reintroduced the hardcoded realtime priority.

People can use
START /high ccminer.exe ...
or even /realtime to start anything with a given priority, there's no need to hardcode it as hardcoded realtime priority freezes my and some other people's rigs. And the start command's priority switch doesn't work if the priority is hardcoded.

That's not how math works. There are no guarantees with ICOs.

Only 6 rigs so 24 x 1080 Ti (half of them Xtreme) running at 150 watts each as I'm heavily power starved for now. 4080 Mh/s total. Do note that even without a power limit this algo doesn't use more than 190 watts on these cards.

100% CPU usage.


Adding some explanation to difficulty and how it works, let's say the difficulty is 1000. Then it means 2^32 x 1000 or 4294967296000 hashes are required to find a block on average.

So if someone's doing 1000 Mh/s, that's 1000x1000x1000 hashes per seconds.

4294967296000 hashes divided by 1000000000 hashes/s equals 4294 seconds.

So with 1000 Mh/s and 1000 difficulty a miner should find a block every 4294 seconds, or 71.5 minutes on average.

But for this coin with skminer this isn't accurate. Maybe because of the CPU usage, maybe because of something else in skminer, maybe because of the wallet, I don't know.

Variance (or luck) of course can heavily skew the results. But I do get 75% fewer blocks consistently.

Yes but the difficulty is what causing the difference.


getmininginfo
{
"blocks" : 1448587,
"timestamp" : 1499615526,
"currentblocksize" : 1000,
"currentblocktx" : 0,
"primeDifficulty" : 7.73370440,
"hashDifficulty" : 1071.74271598,
"primeReserve" : 196.88385500,
"hashReserve" : 253.62804100,
"primeValue" : 13.67753400,
"hashValue" : 13.67752100,
"pooledtx" : 0
}

Unless that's not the real SK1024 difficulty (seems to be real because the miner also uses this), that number is all that matters regarding how long it takes to find blocks with a given hashrate. It's just simple math.


Win7 x64, Pentium G3420, 8-16GB RAM (8GB pagefile) 4x AORUS 1080 Ti per rig.

In 67.1 hours I mined 54 blocks. Taking the average difficulty, I mined exactly 25% of what I should have based on the difficulty. Same difficulty calculations that work accurately for every other coin, including multi-algo coins.

I've mined 50 Nexus blocks in the last couple of days and never once had a single orphan. But I see a lot of people having them. I also never had the miner crash on any of the rigs.

Not a massive sample size, but from my experience both majoh's and sp_'s miner only finds about 1/4 - 1/5 of what the diffculty and miner's hashrate would dictate. That could be an issue with the wallet, I'm not sure but the fudge factor is huge with this one.

I don't get why people use exchanges that are clearly way over their heads and act surprised.

It's clear for months they are way overwhelmed and was still unable to caught up even until today.

How can you trust such a service? Besides, even banks take much less time to help you.

That's a good way to get a lot of people scammed.

ASIC R&D should better be left to people who actually know what they are doing.

Need more info. They seem to be way over their heads with the info given.

How tight is security (can workers nick you rigs)? Is there security 0-24 or just in working hours, or the opposite?

How much would you have to pay for electricity $/kWh? If they can't answer that or just say it's free, they don't know what they're doing.

How close the rigs would be to workers (mainly because of the noise)?

Yes, smart contracts are great, but how many of them do you or anyone you know use?

Unless your friends threw a hundred thousands USD at Eth, they probably won't be millionaires.

At first I though Eth surpassing BTC would be a sad day but in reality Eth has no day to day use. Its recent value must be tied to the dozens of ICOs tied to it and all the new gold rush chasing gamblers who throw money at them - chasing Bitcoin's success.

I have no idea.

Maybe include the prices you bought them for (without amount if you want) in your comment and make a ocmparison a few months down the line.

That's kind of overdoing it and if you want super accurate numbers it's also skewed since GPU mining also requires some CPU so without cards you get less consumption if the CPU is downclocked.

I just assume each rig uses 60 watts and work around that.

And since the rig will always be running, it's advised to measure the power consumption at the wall with all the cards being idle (mining software not running) and measure it when mining is running for a while. The difference is your true GPU power consumption.

Measure at the wall. Software can't possible be accurate.

You can't possibly limit how much people buy. Limits like 100 Eth cannot be enforced.

You're blaming whales for dumping but that's not just whales but 9/10 people getting into ICOs; they see a bunch of promises, some advertising, maybe a few pretty graphs and videos and that's enough for them to roll the dice.

The problem with ICOs aren't whales, it's people who throw money at ICOs.

ICO gamblers are soldem crypto enthusiast or even care about crypto, they just want a quick payout.

Everyone and their grandmother is either buying mining rigs to mine 1 or maybe 2 coins and/or to roll the dice on ICOs. They're only here chasing a gold rush and as soon as Bitcoin would go back to where it was months ago, they'd disappear just as quickly as they emerged.


If you expect ICO participants to tie their money down for a year, why not also lock the funds they pay for you and slowly unlock it to the devs over a year to make it fair and keep you guys incentivized not to just run with the funds?

Then don't handicap it with a silly ICO.

If you and your team can't trust your project enough to throw your own money into it and fund it then how are you expecting others to trust it enough to give you money?

And if you and your team are not able to fund it, then maybe not start a project that is above your heads or try find investors without giving them premined coins.

No crypto is decentralized - therefore becomes useless - if some people have control over a significant amount of the supply.

Fund your project without ICO/premine and get coins like everyone else by mining or whatever fair method you intend to initially distribute the coins.

I'm curious about their approach.

Very high TX/seconds can be achieved easily but it introduces problems such as rapid blockchain bloat (the size of the blockchain grows rapidly to gigabytes or even terrabytes of data) or too short block times that can cause forks or very high block sizes which require tons of bandwidth excluding regular users to be full nodes.

Even if each transaction would only be 100 bytes each (Bitcoin has about ~3 times bigger transaction sizes on average), each block would use ~42 MB of disk space. That's 42 MB per second. Even one hundredth of that would require a continous bandwidth of 429 KB/s. And it likely wouldn't be perfectly continuous at all so you would need massive speed spikes not to lag behind the network.

And that amount of transaction surely requires a lot of CPU power to actually process.

Flush 100% down the toilet and fund the project yourself without ICO.

I think fractions shouldn't be named anything. It would just cause another, unnecessary layer of confusion for no reason.

Ethereum's unit scheme (wei, kwei, ada, femtoether, mwei, babbage, picoether, gwei, shannon, nanoether, nano, szabo, microether, micro, finney, milliether, milli, ether, kether, grand, einstein, mether, gether, tether, source) is retarded enough along with 'gas'.

Additional names for different units/fractions provide no benefit at all, just confusion.