Okay, pretty much what I thought: those magic knights don't exist, and the level of understanding about the second most important aspect of DigiByte is, in general, close to zero.
Considering just how important it is to have a good understanding of this, would it be too much to ask for an explanation in layman's terms?
As a guide, not that you need it as you clearly answered both with your posting of the respective codes, but in order to help with the framing of that explanation for the average person, I'll remind of the framing of the last questions:
We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent?
Looks to me like the overall relationship is still very similar, in that all 5 algos have their difficulties to mine calculated from the same base input, but, not being an expert, I don't want to misrepresent the facts and prefer to hear your, expert, explanation for the masses.
More than anything because I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert, and in this matter I consider myself to be a member of the masses.
Very much appreciated!
A great place to begin answering this question is with MentalCollatz's original post on the GitHub repo. And also many, many thanks to MentalCollatz for contributing this code and insight to DigiByte. https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36First off, this will fix the safe mode warnings once and for all. But it does so much more than that. Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack.
The new formula was chosen as a function of the difficulties and based on these criteria:
1. It should be a symmetric funtion
2. It should be order 1 homogenous
3. It should be homogenous with respect to each variable
Or in plain English:
1. There should be nothing algorithm-specific (such as per-algorithm weights) nor should it depend on which algorithm actually solved the block.
2. If all difficulties double, the block work should double
3. If one difficulty doubles, the block work should change by some constant factor
There is only one function (save multiplication by a constant factor) satisfying all 3 conditions: the geometric mean. As an added bonus, because of how the difficulty algorithm works the geometric mean can change by at most 3% from block to block (which addresses the safe-mode warning issue).
In order to 51% attack the network, the product of the attacker's hashrates must exceed the product of the network's hashrates. In particular, the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms. So to summarise, there is no longer an individual algorithm weighting (workfactor) but a geometric mean (nthRoot) of all algos. This allows for five birds to be killed with one stone; preventing time warp attacks, eliminating safe mode error, improving difficulty adjustments, making sure each algo is only getting 20% of all the blocks and dramatically increasing the difficulty of a 51% attack. If you look back at the previous several thousand blocks and calculate the average % of each algo you will get the 20% average. Things are working as expected in that regard. Now as to electrical efficiency of each mining setup. ASIC's are by their very nature designed to be highly efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuitThe original idea was to allow for people with both used, obsolete ASIC's and GPU's as well as some CPU's to be able to mine. As time has gone on the mining scene has undoubtedly changed and we now have two algos (Sha256 and Scrypt) dominated by ASIC's. As time goes on these two algos miners will get more electrically efficient but still only account 40% of new DGB coming into circulation. The other 60% is up for grabs from GPU's. As ASIC's get cheaper and more efficient it will be easier to distribute ASIC miners to people such as gamers. Remember the only thing a Sha256 or Scrypt ASIC can be used for is to mine a digital currency. Does this answer everyones questions? This is a very complex topic so we understand the confusion. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions as technology is rapidly changing. I'm sorry, but it still doesn't answer my question, and I must assume that is due to my inability to adequately frame the question. I will make another attempt by putting then into in a closed, yes/no, format that could/should be followed by an explanation. Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated based on total aggregate hashrate (the 5 combined hashrates)?NO
Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated solely based on the hashrate of the individual algo in question?YES
When the diff of one algo rises (or falls), the diff of the other algos rise (or fall) in equal proportion?NOI have provide my answers to your question above because logic tells me that this must be the case for the 20% per algo distribution to be maintained. Wisdom from the most unsuspecting of places. I'm astonished. Now that wasn't really so hard to deal with in a way that everyone can understand and take seriously, was it? Like pulling teeth . . . |
|
|
|
Okay, pretty much what I thought: those magic knights don't exist, and the level of understanding about the second most important aspect of DigiByte is, in general, close to zero.
Considering just how important it is to have a good understanding of this, would it be too much to ask for an explanation in layman's terms?
As a guide, not that you need it as you clearly answered both with your posting of the respective codes, but in order to help with the framing of that explanation for the average person, I'll remind of the framing of the last questions:
We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent?
Looks to me like the overall relationship is still very similar, in that all 5 algos have their difficulties to mine calculated from the same base input, but, not being an expert, I don't want to misrepresent the facts and prefer to hear your, expert, explanation for the masses.
More than anything because I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert, and in this matter I consider myself to be a member of the masses.
Very much appreciated!
A great place to begin answering this question is with MentalCollatz's original post on the GitHub repo. And also many, many thanks to MentalCollatz for contributing this code and insight to DigiByte. https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36First off, this will fix the safe mode warnings once and for all. But it does so much more than that. Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack.
The new formula was chosen as a function of the difficulties and based on these criteria:
1. It should be a symmetric funtion
2. It should be order 1 homogenous
3. It should be homogenous with respect to each variable
Or in plain English:
1. There should be nothing algorithm-specific (such as per-algorithm weights) nor should it depend on which algorithm actually solved the block.
2. If all difficulties double, the block work should double
3. If one difficulty doubles, the block work should change by some constant factor
There is only one function (save multiplication by a constant factor) satisfying all 3 conditions: the geometric mean. As an added bonus, because of how the difficulty algorithm works the geometric mean can change by at most 3% from block to block (which addresses the safe-mode warning issue).
In order to 51% attack the network, the product of the attacker's hashrates must exceed the product of the network's hashrates. In particular, the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms. So to summarise, there is no longer an individual algorithm weighting (workfactor) but a geometric mean (nthRoot) of all algos. This allows for five birds to be killed with one stone; preventing time warp attacks, eliminating safe mode error, improving difficulty adjustments, making sure each algo is only getting 20% of all the blocks and dramatically increasing the difficulty of a 51% attack. If you look back at the previous several thousand blocks and calculate the average % of each algo you will get the 20% average. Things are working as expected in that regard. Now as to electrical efficiency of each mining setup. ASIC's are by their very nature designed to be highly efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuitThe original idea was to allow for people with both used, obsolete ASIC's and GPU's as well as some CPU's to be able to mine. As time has gone on the mining scene has undoubtedly changed and we now have two algos (Sha256 and Scrypt) dominated by ASIC's. As time goes on these two algos miners will get more electrically efficient but still only account 40% of new DGB coming into circulation. The other 60% is up for grabs from GPU's. As ASIC's get cheaper and more efficient it will be easier to distribute ASIC miners to people such as gamers. Remember the only thing a Sha256 or Scrypt ASIC can be used for is to mine a digital currency. Does this answer everyones questions? This is a very complex topic so we understand the confusion. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions as technology is rapidly changing. I'm sorry, but it still doesn't answer my question, and I must assume that is due to my inability to adequately frame the question. I will make another attempt by putting then into in a closed, yes/no, format that could/should be followed by an explanation. Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated based on total aggregate hashrate (the 5 combined hashrates)?
Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated solely based on the hashrate of the individual algo in question?
When the diff of one algo rises (or falls), the diff of the other algos rise (or fall) in equal proportion? |
|
|
|
Here is the first weighting code (pre DigiSpeed): https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/blob/master/src/main.h#L866 int GetAlgoWorkFactor() const
{
if (!TestNet() && (nHeight < multiAlgoDiffChangeTarget))
{
return 1;
}
if (TestNet() && (nHeight < 100))
{
return 1;
}
switch (GetAlgo())
{
case ALGO_SHA256D:
return 1;
// work factor = absolute work ratio * optimisation factor
case ALGO_SCRYPT:
return 1024 * 4;
case ALGO_GROESTL:
return 64 * 8;
case ALGO_SKEIN:
return 4 * 6;
case ALGO_QUBIT:
return 128 * 8;
default:
return 1;
}
} New Adjusted Weighting Code (Post DigiSpeed): CBigNum GetBlockWorkAdjusted() const
{
if (nHeight < workComputationChangeTarget)
{
CBigNum bnRes;
bnRes = GetBlockWork() * GetAlgoWorkFactor();
return bnRes;
}
else
{
CBigNum bnRes = 1;
CBlockHeader header = GetBlockHeader();
// multiply the difficulties of all algorithms
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ALGOS; i++)
{
unsigned int nBits = GetNextWorkRequired(pprev, &header, i,false);
CBigNum bnTarget;
bnTarget.SetCompact(nBits);
if (bnTarget <= 0)
return 0;
bnRes *= (CBigNum(1)<<256) / (bnTarget+1);
}
// Compute the geometric mean
bnRes = bnRes.nthRoot(NUM_ALGOS);
// Scale to roughly match the old work calculation
bnRes <<= 7;
return bnRes;
}
} Okay, pretty much what I thought: those magic knights don't exist, and the level of understanding about the second most important aspect of DigiByte is, in general, close to zero. Considering just how important it is to have a good understanding of this, would it be too much to ask for an explanation in layman's terms?As a guide, not that you need it as you clearly answered both with your posting of the respective codes, but in order to help with the framing of that explanation for the average person, I'll remind of the framing of the last questions: We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent?Looks to me like the overall relationship is still very similar, in that all 5 algos have their difficulties to mine calculated from the same base input, but, not being an expert, I don't want to misrepresent the facts and prefer to hear your, expert, explanation for the masses. More than anything because I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert, and in this matter I consider myself to be a member of the masses. Very much appreciated! |
|
|
|
HR as far as I understand it 20% of the blocks are ASIC, 20% are Scrypt, 60% are GPU (I do not know if these are equally distributed).
That's not the issue. The block find distribution is 20/20/20/20/20. About that there is no doubt. The question is how does MultiShield adjust each algo's diff and as a function of exactly what? We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent? |
|
|
|
I’m going to use these figures, pulled out of a post a little way back by a well know member of our community. I’m going to consider that these figures are in the ball park of correctness but it does not particularly matter for the purpose of this exercise.
5000 DGB of mining
SHA-256 ASIC using 2.4KWh
Scrypt ASIC using 7.5KWh
GPU using 9.9KWh
Then using some special magic, I’m going to make SHA size of the network just over 4 times bigger and the Scrypt size about 1.3 times bigger. Abracadabra, they are all on an equal footing and the DigiByte network is considerably stronger than it was before I used the special magic. I’m going to need to use a bit more magic again when the latest ASIC technology hits mining.
I know I don’t really have any special magic to use, that’s why knights are so important!
We could follow the other suggestion that has been made to tackle this issue and do away with the ASIC part of the network and replace it with other algorithms but I will argue that this would require more hard forks and would actually leave our network weaker than it is already.
I don't want to get entangled in this too much but I just wanted to mention that I've been able to undervolt my 280x and mine qubit to get about 11 MH/s and that only runs at about 150 watts according to my Kill-a-watt. 11 Mh/s is roughly about 5k dgb per day which will put my 150 watts at about 3.6kw per day. Still not as efficient a sha256 asic but a lot less than the 9.9kwh mentioned above. I am guessing that's for either Skein or Scrypt on a GPU. Great to see your presense Kayahoga, as always. Those are some very impressive results indeed! Let me guess, a dual card NVIDIA rig? Phenomenal. Actually its not NVIDIA, its a single AMD MSI 280x. My "gaming" rig. Undervolting is the key, you cant do it with every card which is why I went with the MSI 280x. Back when I had my rigs once I figured out how to properly undervolt I was saving about $50 a month in electricity with only sacrificing a small amount of hashing power. Wow! That's more than double the hashrate I've ever seen published for a 280x ( http://asistec-ti.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=38 ). Incredible. And you're still mining and those are current rewards? EDIT: if you post your configuration, I'll add it to the list. The magic isn't in the config, its the new optimized miner. Check out the miner's from nicehash. They keep up on all the latest builds and optimized kernels. Either way...I use --intensity 18 --worksize 64 -g 2 A 280x is one of the few cards that should always have a -g 2, my engine stays at 1020 since I'm undervolting. I am pretty sure if I threw more juice at it I could go for 1100 and get close to 12 MH Edit: Yes I'm still mining, just on my gaming rig with a single GPU, mining away today on my 280x That's wild! Thanks for the tip. Someone else mentioned them again not too long ago on my forum and I appreciate you confirming that. Cheers Edit: btw, did you finally end up having any luck with Craptsy? |
|
|
|
The idea that a huge increase in the hashrate of any one given algo only affects the diff of that particular algo and thus magically levels the playing field is also ludicrous, unless, that is, there was a major undocumented change in the DigiSpeed update.
Wait a minute...are you saying that the hashrate of one algorithm affects the diff of other algorithms or are you saying that the fact that it doesn't doesn't level the playing field? You're one of the DigiSpeed update coders, you tell me. Don't you think that is the logical direction of information flow? Are they completely independent of one another? Total aggregate hashrate of the combined 5 algos means nothing in the dynamic adjustment of each individual algo's diff? Each algo's diff is completely independent of the others and is dependent exclusively and only on its own hashrate? Please don't take this as unfounded criticism. My numbers suggest something very different from what you suggest, and I think that my analysis is quite rigourous and merits serious response - I'm asking for clarification and/or documentation so I can better understand; I am not attacking.
Your analysis may very well be rigorous, but I can't find your analysis - only your conclusions and a rough description of your sources. If you want a serious response, post your source data, the conclusions you derive from the source data, and any required logical steps that go beyond "basic math skills". I shouldn't have to re-do all your work just to have a conversation with you about the results. That's exactly right: you should do your own work, especially since you haven't already done it on your own and of your own initiative. Or do you think I'm here to work for you? I've done my job by alerting you to the fact that with basic math skills and the data source mentioned (that is freely available to the public), anyone can confirm it. It's your problem, not mine, if you don't care, and judging by your attitude, I guess it's just that, correct? If you don't care, why should I? In any event, it's a moot issue until the first question above is answered. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
I’m going to use these figures, pulled out of a post a little way back by a well know member of our community. I’m going to consider that these figures are in the ball park of correctness but it does not particularly matter for the purpose of this exercise.
5000 DGB of mining
SHA-256 ASIC using 2.4KWh
Scrypt ASIC using 7.5KWh
GPU using 9.9KWh
Then using some special magic, I’m going to make SHA size of the network just over 4 times bigger and the Scrypt size about 1.3 times bigger. Abracadabra, they are all on an equal footing and the DigiByte network is considerably stronger than it was before I used the special magic. I’m going to need to use a bit more magic again when the latest ASIC technology hits mining.
I know I don’t really have any special magic to use, that’s why knights are so important!
We could follow the other suggestion that has been made to tackle this issue and do away with the ASIC part of the network and replace it with other algorithms but I will argue that this would require more hard forks and would actually leave our network weaker than it is already.
I don't want to get entangled in this too much but I just wanted to mention that I've been able to undervolt my 280x and mine qubit to get about 11 MH/s and that only runs at about 150 watts according to my Kill-a-watt. 11 Mh/s is roughly about 5k dgb per day which will put my 150 watts at about 3.6kw per day. Still not as efficient a sha256 asic but a lot less than the 9.9kwh mentioned above. I am guessing that's for either Skein or Scrypt on a GPU. Great to see your presense Kayahoga, as always. Those are some very impressive results indeed! Let me guess, a dual card NVIDIA rig? Phenomenal. Actually its not NVIDIA, its a single AMD MSI 280x. My "gaming" rig. Undervolting is the key, you cant do it with every card which is why I went with the MSI 280x. Back when I had my rigs once I figured out how to properly undervolt I was saving about $50 a month in electricity with only sacrificing a small amount of hashing power. Wow! That's more than double the hashrate I've ever seen published for a 280x ( http://asistec-ti.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=38 ). Incredible. And you're still mining and those are current rewards? EDIT: if you post your configuration, I'll add it to the list. |
|
|
|
I don't have time atm to actually plug in some real numbers, my argument is more based on the fact that you will have a huge variability in electricity costs so any one standard that we would implement (such as the US average, lol at expected US exceptionalism btw) would likely disadvantage other people somewhere else potentially using another algo. As you've said it goes from "free" electricity to very expensive electricity in parts of the EU. I just don't think we would a) find a reasonable electricity price standard and b) be able to implement this on a codebase level without adding unnecessary complications (or hard forks every month). If I'm free later I will dig into the numbers but I think the argument about viability of implementation and finding a correct price standard stands on its own and doesn't really have to be backed up by data right here and now (if you like program some code to calculate the standard deviation in electricity costs around the world and we can discuss if its a significant factor).
I absolutely agree that this is not a pressing issue; nonetheless, an ROI on per unit electricity cost (even using a random number - variations in local costs are essentially irrelevant) baseline comparison between algos is something that must be addressed long term, for the reasons outlined in my prediction posted above, and I'm encouraged by your expressed willingness to join in with the analysis, of course, without a doubt, when you have time and at your leisure - it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise. |
|
|
|
I’m going to use these figures, pulled out of a post a little way back by a well know member of our community. I’m going to consider that these figures are in the ball park of correctness but it does not particularly matter for the purpose of this exercise.
5000 DGB of mining
SHA-256 ASIC using 2.4KWh
Scrypt ASIC using 7.5KWh
GPU using 9.9KWh
Then using some special magic, I’m going to make SHA size of the network just over 4 times bigger and the Scrypt size about 1.3 times bigger. Abracadabra, they are all on an equal footing and the DigiByte network is considerably stronger than it was before I used the special magic. I’m going to need to use a bit more magic again when the latest ASIC technology hits mining.
I know I don’t really have any special magic to use, that’s why knights are so important!
We could follow the other suggestion that has been made to tackle this issue and do away with the ASIC part of the network and replace it with other algorithms but I will argue that this would require more hard forks and would actually leave our network weaker than it is already.
I don't want to get entangled in this too much but I just wanted to mention that I've been able to undervolt my 280x and mine qubit to get about 11 MH/s and that only runs at about 150 watts according to my Kill-a-watt. 11 Mh/s is roughly about 5k dgb per day which will put my 150 watts at about 3.6kw per day. Still not as efficient a sha256 asic but a lot less than the 9.9kwh mentioned above. I am guessing that's for either Skein or Scrypt on a GPU. Great to see your presense Kayahoga, as always. Those are some very impressive results indeed! Let me guess, a dual card NVIDIA rig? Phenomenal. |
|
|
|
Oh, I know I'm the bad guy, but bear with me. I'd just like to officially go on the public record with a prediction I made in private.
. . . mark my words, the difference between becoming the cryptographic currency used worldwide to which it aspires, and a slow certain death, will be whether or not the proportionate payout per unit of electricity invested in variable costs is made equal among algos. It’s as simple as that: success or failure will depend on making GPU mining equally profitable with specialized ASIC mining on a per unit of electricity cost basis. It's the difference between thousands of active nodes that slowly diminish to a handful of people whose only common bond is their virtual “friendship”, and hundreds of thousands that grows to millions based on a common use of a serious and stable, extremely safe cryptographic digitalized money and means of exchange.
Just as important as previous innovations have been in getting DigiByte where it is, the complete leveling of real economically rational participatory opportunity is the cornerstone for whether DigiByte will be taken to the next level or not, and without it, a truly worldwide distributed network is impossible. Mark my words.
And, for anyone who might be wondering, that's not THE issue. It's the OTHER issue that's much much more important.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. The point behind having 5 different hashing algorithms with variable electricity costs is to decentralise the system further, not make it more centralised. Take this example; Alice lives in the US and is a pro-gamer, she loves gaming and has come across digibyte gaming, learnt a little about blockchains and would like to mine some digibyte. She already has an awesome gaming rig and she's been told by awesome members of this community that she can mine some digibytes using her gaming rig, she thinks awesome, hooks up here gaming rig to the digibyte network and voila shes mining. Alice has cost of electricity x per hash. Now Bob comes a long and he's a big chinese crypto geek who owns an ASIC mining farm. He finds digibytes and thinks, what an awesome coin! Im going to start mining some of that. Bob has cost of electricity y per hash. Now Alice and Bob being in the US and China obviously have different variable electricity costs (for sake of argument lets assume that the US is more expensive). Lets put some numbers in the game. Let x=10 cents per hash (these are imaginary numbers) and y=5 per hash. Now if ASIC and GPU mining would have the same electricity cost per hash (as I believe your suggesting) it is obvious that Bob would be able to mine more digibytes. On the other hand if we leave digibyte the way it is (also taking into account the wisdom of Jared on this one) Assuming Alice gets twice the amount of digibytes than Bob (for sake of argument) they will actually be mining the same amount of digibytes! My point being this; your not taking into the account the variability of electricity costs around the world. I think the intention of having the 5 mining algorithms as they are is precisely to get a better distributed/decentralised network (especially geographically). Also implementing your suggestion on a programming level would be quite hard because you would somehow have to take into account the time variations of electricity costs around the whole world and constantly keep updating this as one of your parameters. Not only that but you would immediately create unequalness due to the geographical variation of electricity costs. And some people have "free" electricity, but the fact that this variable "varies" should not preclude serious analysis using the scientific method isolating independent variables using real numbers and a baseline independent variable such as the national average US electricity cost (the fact that electricity costs vary even within the US is going to prevent us from doing a serious baseline comparison between algos?). Or, even if you like, a random number for that independent variable of per unit electricity cost. Can you show us how the ROI on operating costs is equal between algos using the same fixed variable for each? My analysis based on The Blocks Factory data suggests not (one must also remember to adjust hashrate equivalents between algos - 1GH/s of SHA = 1MH/s scrypt, for example - etc.). The idea that a huge increase in the hashrate of any one given algo only affects the diff of that particular algo and thus magically levels the playing field is also ludicrous, unless, that is, there was a major undocumented change in the DigiSpeed update. Please don't take this as unfounded criticism. My numbers suggest something very different from what you suggest, and I think that my analysis is quite rigourous and merits serious response - I'm asking for clarification and/or documentation so I can better understand; I am not attacking. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, I know I'm the bad guy, but bear with me. I'd just like to officially go on the public record with a prediction I made in private.
. . . mark my words, the difference between becoming the cryptographic currency used worldwide to which it aspires, and a slow certain death, will be whether or not the proportionate payout per unit of electricity invested in variable costs is made equal among algos. It’s as simple as that: success or failure will depend on making GPU mining equally profitable with specialized ASIC mining on a per unit of electricity cost basis. It's the difference between thousands of active nodes that slowly diminish to a handful of people whose only common bond is their virtual “friendship”, and hundreds of thousands that grows to millions based on a common use of a serious and stable, extremely safe cryptographic digitalized money and means of exchange.
Just as important as previous innovations have been in getting DigiByte where it is, the complete leveling of real economically rational participatory opportunity is the cornerstone for whether DigiByte will be taken to the next level or not, and without it, a truly worldwide distributed network is impossible. Mark my words.
And, for anyone who might be wondering, that's not THE issue. It's the OTHER issue that's much much more important.
|
|
|
|
^^^ Excellent and thanks for clearing that up, like I said I’m cool with it and I’m sorry if my public statement was misleading to anybody. I clearly misunderstood your intention and you expressly requested no reply in your communications.  To which you replied with a smartass remark anyway . . . Okay, I see the consistency and complete logic to what you just said.  Jumbley, you're the biggest joke BCT has ever seen. |
|
|
|
HR has declared privately he is leaving the building and I think that’s best until he cools those jets of his for now.
Well, nice to see that the self-appointed DigiByte spokesman is once again at the top of his game. Jumbley, as you correctly said (with one thing anyway), I said privately that I was completely out of the core group I was invited to join. Was it lost on you that I was specifically and privately addressing those seven members of the core group who were copied in those lengthy PM's whose intent was to do their best to answer your hostile responses? I think that after several, time consuming responses, I summed things up quite succinctly by saying "I have nothing more to say to any of you". That was quite clearly a statement made to the recipients of those PMs. I never said I was going to renounce my right to act as a private "citizen", and I will continue to be active on BCT, here and elsewhere, and on Twitter as well, in that very same capacity of being just another community member. And while community member status obviously means that posts will be much more sporadic, that doesn't mean I won't be contributing, and much less so when it has to do with something important, and even less so when it comes to a misrepresentation of the facts. I highly encourage you to get a bit more serious with your public statements. Again, I've disassociated myself from the core group, not from anything else, and as I said in private, those being private conversations, I have no intention of taking them public, unless, that is, someone else takes something public in a misleading way that misinforms, in which case you leave me with only one option, publicly correcting the misinformation you have erroneously decided to take public. I hope that's clear once and for all. Please try to think before you so gleefully speak. BTW, is anyone else having problems withdrawing from DigiByteTip? I've got an "Awaiting transaction response" message that is 3 days old now. |
|
|
|
There is not a set formula for mining profitability. I thought your analysis was interesting HR. However, it didn't match my real world data using scrypt ASIC. Mining can't be analyzed as an independent activity from trading or from a larger systemic approach to investing, supporting, and engaging with DGB. I spent a significant amount of money on my current ASIC rig. Around the time it was delivered, the support forums for the company were filled with people saying that it could never be profitable. Here I am, 2 calendar years later, and I'm still theoretically in profits mining DGB. I say theoretically because I don't sell to pay for operating costs.
Your work with support and analysis is fantastic. It is a huge benefit to have you working on behalf of DGB.
To directly address the points in your previous post ... GPU (and CPU) can be profitable. Clearly it's not the best choice if you try to compete directly with ASIC. But, it can squeak out a a profit with the non-ASIC algorithms when it is done with care and thought in the process of mining DGB. ASIC mining is not necessarily bad. Neither is GPU or CPU necessarily good. ASICs are a part of our world.
At DGB we have a great diversity of mining and support within our community. The diversity adds value to DGB.
We all get frustrated sometimes. It happened to me from December through January. I just felt like no matter what I wrote here or tried I was pissing into the wind. I was disheartened, but it wasn't about DGB.
We are here as a DigiByte community to support and encourage and grow. Everyone here contributes and adds value to our community. We disagree. We agree. We argue. We build. We develop. We support. We are all committed to the success of DGB. I think it's great that we have seen some new members of the community expressing interest in mining and supporting DGB. To all the new members of our community ... we are here to help you. DigiByte has a bright future. I believe we will have plenty of challenges on the way, but we'll get there.
The analysis was done using The Blocks Factory data using national average US electricty costs and can be confirmed by anyone with basic math skils wishing to do so. (You can pass that on to Jombley so he does't feel hurt.) The results show that SHA mining is profitable at current prices (on an ex-hardware investment basis) and the clear implication is that GPU mining could be profitable if SHA were NOT present since price would adjust accordingly. Nice to see someone actually addressing the matter head on and logically BTW. :-) Another possibility to make the playing field even leveler so as to increase relative profitability between algos, and thereby further incentive "average guy" mining and a more widely distributed and secure network in turn, would be to reduce SHA payouts by 75% and scrypt by 25%. Everything would truly be equal then, and those beloved SHA miners would still be a part of the "community", BUT WITHOUT SUBSIDIZED FAVORITISM! Anyone have a problem with the concept of equal opportunity? Especially considering it's even in DGB's best interest? Doubters and out of hand disqualifiers, confirm the numbers on your own, or if you're too lazy, just ask the Devs if those payout differences are correct or not - they should know . . . and if they don't, it's high time they did! Again, the raw data is there for anyone with the courage to look and the ability to do basic math. There's no subjectivity involved, much less mystery. I've crunched the numbers, partly because I was curious, and partly because I'm a nice guy who wants to lend a hand. At current rewards, in order to mine 5000 DGB with modern SHA-256 ASIC equipment, you'll need ~2.4 kWh. With modern Scrypt ASIC equipment you'll use ~7.5 kWh. And with the GPU algos (all very similar) you'll consume ~9.9 kWh. As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between SHA-256 and GPU, but whether that difference is enough to cover your fixed hardware investment or not, that is if you buy an Antminer or not and can reach ROI, for example, is up to you to figure out. The difference between scrypt ASIC and GPU is much less pronounced, but if you've already got a gaming rig set up, it probably won't take too much convincing to just use what you've got and get with installing and configuring your miner since we're only talking about 30-40 cents a day of difference.  Edit: I've always been in favor of rotating out SHA-256 and substituting it with a more widely distributed friendly algo BTW. And between here and there, some 80 posts or so, much of which is reactionary nonsense meant to distract attention away from something possibly extremely beneficial for DigiByte, there are other other bits and pieces of information and words to the wise. |
|
|
|
There is not a set formula for mining profitability. I thought your analysis was interesting HR. However, it didn't match my real world data using scrypt ASIC. Mining can't be analyzed as an independent activity from trading or from a larger systemic approach to investing, supporting, and engaging with DGB. I spent a significant amount of money on my current ASIC rig. Around the time it was delivered, the support forums for the company were filled with people saying that it could never be profitable. Here I am, 2 calendar years later, and I'm still theoretically in profits mining DGB. I say theoretically because I don't sell to pay for operating costs.
Your work with support and analysis is fantastic. It is a huge benefit to have you working on behalf of DGB.
To directly address the points in your previous post ... GPU (and CPU) can be profitable. Clearly it's not the best choice if you try to compete directly with ASIC. But, it can squeak out a a profit with the non-ASIC algorithms when it is done with care and thought in the process of mining DGB. ASIC mining is not necessarily bad. Neither is GPU or CPU necessarily good. ASICs are a part of our world.
At DGB we have a great diversity of mining and support within our community. The diversity adds value to DGB.
We all get frustrated sometimes. It happened to me from December through January. I just felt like no matter what I wrote here or tried I was pissing into the wind. I was disheartened, but it wasn't about DGB.
We are here as a DigiByte community to support and encourage and grow. Everyone here contributes and adds value to our community. We disagree. We agree. We argue. We build. We develop. We support. We are all committed to the success of DGB. I think it's great that we have seen some new members of the community expressing interest in mining and supporting DGB. To all the new members of our community ... we are here to help you. DigiByte has a bright future. I believe we will have plenty of challenges on the way, but we'll get there.
The analysis was done using The Blocks Factory data using national average US electricty costs and can be confirmed by anyone with basic math skils wishing to do so. (You can pass that on to Jombley so he does't feel hurt.) The results show that SHA mining is profitable at current prices (on an ex-hardware investment basis) and the clear implication is that GPU mining could be profitable if SHA were NOT present since price would adjust accordingly. Nice to see someone actually addressing the matter head on and logically BTW. :-) |
|
|
|
this is a lot to handle at once. I'll start reading before doing anything. for now I'm going to test every single possibility, then chose the best way. I have a vps to test on and I may try with ASIC, and I'm right now going to test my cpu mining and gpu mining.
I've crunched the numbers, partly because I was curious, and partly because I'm a nice guy who wants to lend a hand. At current rewards, in order to mine 5000 DGB with modern SHA-256 ASIC equipment, you'll need ~2.4 kWh. With modern Scrypt ASIC equipment you'll use ~7.5 kWh. And with the GPU algos (all very similar) you'll consume ~9.9 kWh. As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between SHA-256 and GPU, but whether that difference is enough to cover your fixed hardware investment or not, that is if you buy an Antminer or not and can reach ROI, for example, is up to you to figure out. The difference between scrypt ASIC and GPU is much less pronounced, but if you've already got a gaming rig set up, it probably won't take too much convincing to just use what you've got and get with installing and configuring your miner since we're only talking about 30-40 cents a day of difference. Edit: I've always been in favor of rotating out SHA-256 and substituting it with a more widely distributed friendly algo BTW. 5000 is that the block reward? and the time frame? per day( 24h) or what ? and these calculation are bit too high don't you think ? I do nor have a perfect gaming rig, I do not consider it a gaming rig at all. I have some old laptops that are no use to me but they still work, I may try to eliminate the display and why not the hard disk too, to minimize the electricity consume, I have like 4 2 (Pentium 4) and 2 (core 2 duo) I may use there cpu.( I have a electronic degree, that won't be a big of a deal) without forgetting my nvidia. I tried to do some calculation but, I had really big struggle with mining !! I downloaded the soft and followed the instruction, but my ind kept telling me that I'm not mining, so I changed to the websites that had worker thins so I started mining with there url etc.. and my worker status kept being inactive. so I had no luck testing my stats. Hi Crazy. The current block reward is about 1054 (it is reduced every month). A block is discovered on the network every 15 seconds. We have 5 mining algorithms (SHA, Scrypt, Groestl, Skein, and Qubit). As a result, you could figure that a block is discovered per algorithm about every minute 15 seconds. Total daily mining rewards are just over 6,000,000 DGB per day. Each mining algorithm has a different difficulty level that is adjusted asymmetrically between blocks (to reduce mining pool attacks). We call the difficulty adjustment "MultiShield," which is the newer version of DigiShield. There are 2 ways to mine: (1) you could solo mine; or (2) you could mine in a mining pool. When you solo mine - if you find a block - you receive the whole block reward. When you mine in a pool - if you find a block - the block reward is shared by all the people in the pool who contributed hash rate during the period that the block was found. Most people mine in pools. It's easier to set up and it creates less variance in rewards over time. For instance, if I were mining solo I might find a 5 blocks a day. I would get all the rewards - so I would get 5270 DGB if I found 5 blocks. But, some days I would find no blocks. Other days I might find more than 5 blocks. So my rewards would be highly variable on any given day. When I mine in a pool, I combine my hash rate with everyone else mining in that pool. For the Official DigiHash Pool, the hashrates (and thus rewards) are divided into different algorithms. The combined hashing power allows the group to find blocks more frequently than people who are solo mining. The pool might find approximately 100 blocks per day. The reward per block is less per block, but the variance of reward payout is smaller. In the long run (i.e. over indefinite amount of time) you would theoretically get the same rewards mining in a pool or mining solo. However, in practice, mining pools allow miners with lower hashrates to earn regular rewards more quickly (a fact that is especially true with coins that have a high difficulty - such as BTC). I would recommend that anyone new to mining DGB start mining in a pool. I would recommend using the official Developer DigiHash Pool because it helps support DGB. If you intend to mine with a GPU, you will want to use any of the algorithms EXCEPT SHA-256. SHA is pretty much all ASIC at this point. Scrypt is both ASIC and GPU, but the GPU hash rate is going to be tiny compared to the ASIC. I'm not an expert at GPU mining (I haven't done it for about 3 years, and I've forgotten pretty much everything). If you do not want to use the DigiHash Easy Miner software, you will need to set up some mining software on your computer. You might try something like multiminer (which is a GUI running on top of BFG miner). I've never tried it for DGB and I'd be interested to hear if anyone has? The truth is that nobody can tell you exactly what your mining rewards or costs will be ... it doesn't matter what anyone posts here or anywhere else. People can give you rough estimates. You can attempt to use mining calculators to get rough estimates. But, the final result depends on many different variables (difficulty at any given moment for the algorithm you are mining, settings for the GPU, cost you pay for electricity, hashrate of the GPU, mining pool, exchange rate, need to sell to cover costs or ability to hold and trade at moments of opportunity, etc.). I do remember when I was GPU mining. It involved lots of little tweaks to get the most efficient settings and highest rewards. I've been mining DGB for about 1.5 years (I don't mine any other coins). I mine with a scrypt ASIC, and I don't mine in the summer because it's too hot. I actually have a couple of different ASIC rigs that I use (and have used) throughout the year (and years). I stated mining about 3.5 years ago with GPUs for LTC and small ASICs for BTC. Here is my best advice based on my years of experience mining: I think you should try it. It's fun, it's addictive, and it's a valuable way to understand digital currencies at a more fundamental level. You're not going to get rich doing it. I think people should start mining for a couple of reasons. First, it is a good way to begin to understand and experience digital currencies at a deeper level. It's not just trading; it's participating and supporting. Don't invest tons of money into mining at the beginning. Learn about how DGB works and start slow. The second reason people should mine is because they believe in DGB and want to help support the network. thanks you that's a clear explanation. I prefer taking a chance and having the block reward to my self. and I'm drooping the idea of mining with a CPU. btw the Scrypt ASIC is a CPU, why does it mine better than normal CPU, is it customized for that use only, and why not customized the laptop CPU to do the same . I'm going to give it a look. I concluded from all this that mining is dying. and can be used as a tool to learn. and to knowledge more about the crypt-world By the way ... if you're going to solo mine ... you'll need to do some modification to the DGB Core Wallet to turn on the server functionality of the wallet. It's pretty simple command line stuff but I've never done it so I'm not qualified to give you instructions. But, I'm sure someone here will be able to help. I'd seriously advise against solo mining. Pooled mining means lower but guaranteed payouts. Solo mining means you'll get the entire block reward but you may never (and I do mean never) find a block. That being said if you do want to solo mine you need to add a few options to your digibyte.conf rpcuser=user
rpcpassword=password
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
listen=1
daemon=1
server=1
you would then run the digibyte wallet and point your mining software at http://127.0.0.1 with the username "user" and password "password". Having a crappy internet connection will also hurt you when solo mining as any block you do find will need to be populated with transactions and broadcast over the network before any of the competing pools/miners and with 15 second block times its made even harder to do that. Think of an ASIC like a specialized CPU. It's been programmed to do only one thing but it does it far better than a general CPU could. There's a detailed solo mine HOWTO on the OP and on my forum that have already been graciously provided to this user before he came back with smart assed remarks questioning the validity of around 3 hours of numbers crunching on my part. Then when he starts being a cry baby, you all start groveling. What are people to think when you're groveling in front of someone who demonstratably despises hard work and then starts whinning when you make things very clear? At very least, people will say you have problems discerning between people who yank your chain and people who contribute value. You've got a HOWTO on the OP! He's been pointed to a wealth of information, and you still grovel? BTW, How are things going with the DiguSign search of signed embedded documents? I suppose that's been fixed since you find the time to engage in activities that are a waste of time and self humiliating. Come to think about it, what's the old saying? Birds of a feather fly together? Maybe you're all just alike? Have you ever seen anywhere, not just here with DGB, but anywhere crypto, an analysis as comprehensive as the one I did the other day about mining returns on electricity used? You make than kind of effort and it's followed by babbling gibberish? Frankly it's mind blowing, especially when it answers the all too frequently asked question as to why price is being kept down! The question that immediately comes to mind is if I am surrounded by ingrates, idiots, or losers. And that analysis also clearly shows that mining IS PROFITABLE, for SHA-256, and would be for GPU, if SHA-256 weren't present. What everone's problem? Too tough? Too advanced to deal with? Is it easier to act like a baffoon? |
|
|
|
this is a lot to handle at once. I'll start reading before doing anything. for now I'm going to test every single possibility, then chose the best way. I have a vps to test on and I may try with ASIC, and I'm right now going to test my cpu mining and gpu mining.
I've crunched the numbers, partly because I was curious, and partly because I'm a nice guy who wants to lend a hand. At current rewards, in order to mine 5000 DGB with modern SHA-256 ASIC equipment, you'll need ~2.4 kWh. With modern Scrypt ASIC equipment you'll use ~7.5 kWh. And with the GPU algos (all very similar) you'll consume ~9.9 kWh. As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between SHA-256 and GPU, but whether that difference is enough to cover your fixed hardware investment or not, that is if you buy an Antminer or not and can reach ROI, for example, is up to you to figure out. The difference between scrypt ASIC and GPU is much less pronounced, but if you've already got a gaming rig set up, it probably won't take too much convincing to just use what you've got and get with installing and configuring your miner since we're only talking about 30-40 cents a day of difference. Edit: I've always been in favor of rotating out SHA-256 and substituting it with a more widely distributed friendly algo BTW. 5000 is that the block reward? and the time frame? per day( 24h) or what ? and these calculation are bit too high don't you think ? I do nor have a perfect gaming rig, I do not consider it a gaming rig at all. I have some old laptops that are no use to me but they still work, I may try to eliminate the display and why not the hard disk too, to minimize the electricity consume, I have like 4 2 (Pentium 4) and 2 (core 2 duo) I may use there cpu.( I have a electronic degree, that won't be a big of a deal) without forgetting my nvidia. I tried to do some calculation but, I had really big struggle with mining !! I downloaded the soft and followed the instruction, but my ind kept telling me that I'm not mining, so I changed to the websites that had worker thins so I started mining with there url etc.. and my worker status kept being inactive. so I had no luck testing my stats. Crazy, 5000 is a base figure to compare with. It is not the block reward and nothing was said suggesting such. Please read more carefully. BTW, it's customary to quote the entire discussion, especially when there are items relating to to various parts of the discussion. We don't normally eliminate what you don't want to hear, and only quote what suits you. If you have a laptop, you're going nowhere fast with mining. Sorry I misunderstood you when you said you were a gamer. Theoretically, you could mine with a CPU, but you'd be looking at maybe 5 DGB a day or so if you're lucky in practice, or, to put it another way, 1000 times less than my comparative figure to work with . . . so if you want to do a mining yield comparison with electricity use, you'd have to divide those kWh usages by 1000. Are you following that? The CPU's you mention are equally impotent - it's the graphic card that matters. There's an OP, a website, a myriad of information in this same thread that can be searched, and Google (as I pointed out in a previous post). Get serious, will you? Or do you get your jollies wasting other people's time? As for everyone who is serious, hopefully the time we've taken to post important informative information won't be completely lost and we'll remember where it is to post for future, more serious community members looking to get up and running in a knowledgeable manner. I feel offended. you where the first person I told that I was new to all this, if you recall. and yes asking is 5000 was the block reward, was a dumb Question to you, but to me that was a great deal, I searched and searched for the block reward estimation but I couldn't find, maybe my research methods are not good or I don't know where to search. you can tell that my English is super bad, but one things is sure, I delver the point, I have said that I am a gamer and I'm going to say it again, I am a gamer, I never said that I play games with a laptop, I said I have 4 old laptops and not that the one I play with is laptop too, I quot: "I have some old laptops that are no use to me". and I said "my nvidia". so if you read carefully, I never said that I don't have a gear? but I do not consider it as a gear cuz I would love to add more to it. I have an i7 Alienware desktop and GTX 960 with 2GB GDDR5 , I have 2 other old graphic cards that I used to play. so I can manage to make something up and I'm sure I can make something from those, as I said before, I have an electronics degree, and to be clear I am really serious about this. and all your information was a big help to me, I asked for help polity with all of you knowing that I'm new, I am sorry if I offended you in anyway without intention but I am a person of manner. and that replay of your's made me think about ever asking here again, I'm a newbie. and I'm proud to take steps in this field my knowledge about computer science is 1% or less. I'm trying, I really really really appreciate your help so don't be an ass and jump to conclusions on your own. before I post, ask,replay I try to research. I feel so sorry for you that I could cry. Now, why don't you and Jumbley go outside and play? |
|
|
|
If anyone has any doubts, I love DigiByte, I respect bitcoin!
even if it is far from what I once hoped it would be.
The fact that you felt the need to say that says it all.  Open mouth, insert foot. |
|
|
|
this is a lot to handle at once. I'll start reading before doing anything. for now I'm going to test every single possibility, then chose the best way. I have a vps to test on and I may try with ASIC, and I'm right now going to test my cpu mining and gpu mining.
I've crunched the numbers, partly because I was curious, and partly because I'm a nice guy who wants to lend a hand. At current rewards, in order to mine 5000 DGB with modern SHA-256 ASIC equipment, you'll need ~2.4 kWh. With modern Scrypt ASIC equipment you'll use ~7.5 kWh. And with the GPU algos (all very similar) you'll consume ~9.9 kWh. As you can see, there is quite a bit of difference between SHA-256 and GPU, but whether that difference is enough to cover your fixed hardware investment or not, that is if you buy an Antminer or not and can reach ROI, for example, is up to you to figure out. The difference between scrypt ASIC and GPU is much less pronounced, but if you've already got a gaming rig set up, it probably won't take too much convincing to just use what you've got and get with installing and configuring your miner since we're only talking about 30-40 cents a day of difference. Edit: I've always been in favor of rotating out SHA-256 and substituting it with a more widely distributed friendly algo BTW. 5000 is that the block reward? and the time frame? per day( 24h) or what ? and these calculation are bit too high don't you think ? I do nor have a perfect gaming rig, I do not consider it a gaming rig at all. I have some old laptops that are no use to me but they still work, I may try to eliminate the display and why not the hard disk too, to minimize the electricity consume, I have like 4 2 (Pentium 4) and 2 (core 2 duo) I may use there cpu.( I have a electronic degree, that won't be a big of a deal) without forgetting my nvidia. I tried to do some calculation but, I had really big struggle with mining !! I downloaded the soft and followed the instruction, but my ind kept telling me that I'm not mining, so I changed to the websites that had worker thins so I started mining with there url etc.. and my worker status kept being inactive. so I had no luck testing my stats. Crazy, 5000 is a base figure to compare with. It is not the block reward and nothing was said suggesting such. Please read more carefully. BTW, it's customary to quote the entire discussion, especially when there are items relating to to various parts of the discussion. We don't normally eliminate what you don't want to hear, and only quote what suits you. If you have a laptop, you're going nowhere fast with mining. Sorry I misunderstood you when you said you were a gamer. Theoretically, you could mine with a CPU, but you'd be looking at maybe 5 DGB a day or so if you're lucky in practice, or, to put it another way, 1000 times less than my comparative figure to work with . . . so if you want to do a mining yield comparison with electricity use, you'd have to divide those kWh usages by 1000. Are you following that? The CPU's you mention are equally impotent - it's the graphic card that matters. There's an OP, a website, a myriad of information in this same thread that can be searched, and Google (as I pointed out in a previous post). Get serious, will you? Or do you get your jollies wasting other people's time? As for everyone who is serious, hopefully the time we've taken to post important informative information won't be completely lost and we'll remember where it is to post for future, more serious community members looking to get up and running in a knowledgeable manner. |
|
|
|
The sha256 algo has become the workhorse of DigiByte I believe, so I think we will be keeping it for the time being. The insurmountable network speed of bitcoin is what many people believe provides its supreme security but with perhaps the imminent introduction of quantum machines that could change. It's not like satoshi had not thought of this, bitcoin was always destined to change with technology. after all that's the beauty of software. DigiByte strives to make this technology available to everyone and our multi-algo approach stops the big boys totally running away with the ball but we are still playing the same game, got a dog in the fight if you like! edit: I'll think you will agree, that's better than a dog in your logo! The SHA-256 miners (specialized highly concentrated miners) have a 4:1 advantage over GPU miners (those who really make up the widely distributed network) and are the main reason why price is kept so low since 50 SAT is their breakeven. In theory, as well as in practice, the SHA-256 miners tend towards centralization, and, therefore, contribute not to security but greater network INsecurity and vulnerability as Jared has clearly explained. It's the small guy who helps promote decentralization, real network security, and widely accepted real world use . . . as has also been clearly explained on numerous occasions. BTW, speed?  I said many people, I didn't mean me. Also, Many people over the last few years have bought mining equipment for home use and found themselves in a fix competing with the big boys and DigiByte is now a place for them, we have made them a home to come to. edit. Speed, hash rate, hashes per second.  here is an old article, I just googled. http://www.forbes.com/sites/reuvencohen/2013/11/28/global-bitcoin-computing-power-now-256-times-faster-than-top-500-supercomputers-combined/#348212b028b7It means it is currently impossible for someone with a powerful super computer or two, to attack the network if they chose to and technically is the umbrella under which we all stand. It's just that we don't all own it like we should. Jumbley, no offense intended, but you need to educate yourself and grow up a bit. Please. Just because it sounds good to you doesn't mean it's true or correct. Remember, what you say here is taken as representative since you represent yourself as a self-styled spokesman, and, as such, you really need to either be very sure about what you're talking about, or take a step back and remind everyone that you are a casual observer talking off the cuff. Your last two posts are complete nonsense. I mean no harm, and wish you well, and hope you take this constructively, but since my private messages on the same have had no positive result, I'm addressing you publicly on the issue in the hopes that a public correction may have better results. I will not be saying this again, nor will I answer any related comments, nor will I correct nonsense in any future replies of yours to others, but, make no mistake, I will clearly call you out on any nonsensical response to anything I post as I will not tolerate any sort of simplistic frivolous undermining of important factual data. I hope I make myself clear. In so far as educating yourself, please start with this video which, in its lonesome little self refutes just about everything you've said in your last two unbelievably uninformed and infantile posts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-haCDqhaTqcMy God, quoting Forbes. Yeah, they're the authority on widely distributed, permissionless, decentralized crytocurrencies! And next time you make claims like the many people who have made investments that you are defending, ask yourself first if you have some data to back your claim. That comment is so far out in left field I can't even believe you said it. You only make clear how ignorant you are when you make such unfounded and totally incorrect claims. YOU yourself. Sorry to be so hard on you, but there comes a point . . . I've been holding back and biting my tongue for months now hoping to see you grow and mature . . . but I'm sorry, when it comes to undermining the hard work of others there is a limit. Best regards, HR |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
