Why does it seem incorrect to you? the rewards will follow the difficulty (not 100% but that's a different topic), so if you assume a 10% increase in difficulty every month, then whatever your Excel sheet showed is correct.

The question is, why would you use 10% per month? the past 12 months had a total difficulty increase of 53.6%, that's more like 4.5% a month than 10%, also this can't be linear progress, just because it went from 1T to 50T from 2017 to 2023 which is an increase of 4900%, it doesn't mean that it will go from 50T to 2500T by 2029, that is not physically possible, not even remotely possible.

Now doing all these projections and estimations for what the difficulty might be in the future is pretty much useless, it's all directly connected to the price of Bitcoin which no code or equation on earth can predict, logically, it's now harder to make a 53% increase in difficulty than it was last year, cause a 50% from 100EH is only 50EH, but a 50% of 300EH is 150EH which is 3x more.

BUT (with all capital letters) it could still happen if BTC goes to 100k in the next few months, you can almost guarantee that a difficulty increase of 4900%  in the next 6 years is impossible, but you can't be certain that a 100% increase next year is not possible, as far as mining is concerned, what happens next year is much more important than what happens 6 years later, the short time frames are what matters, and predicting those with a good accurate is impossible, whatever gear you buy today will probably be dead or useless 3-4 years from now, so all the math you do today in respect to 10 years later is a waste of brain cells and computer resources.

But anyway, the way you do the math is correct, maybe not 100% accurate but correct.


 

هل تذكر انقسام عملة BCH الذي حدث منذ بضعة اعوام؟ انقسم مجتمع البتكوين كاش الى قسمين, وكل واحد منهم اراد تشكيل القوانين على حسب مايعتقد انه افضل للمشروع, وحدث hard fork للبلوكتشين, وكل فريق كان يدعي ان عملته هي التي يجب ان تحتفظ ب BCH كاكيان واسم على المنصات والمحافظ, طبعا الامر لم يكن ممكن نظرا لانهم عبارة عن عدد 2 بلوكتشين منفصلين تماما, كان الظغط على المنصات مستمر من الطرفين, انت الان كمالك للمنصة عليك ان تحدد اي بلوكتشين ستميه ب BCH و اي بلوكتشين ستعطيه الاسم الجديد؟

مافعلته معظم المنصات هوا الحياد وقررو جعل القرار في ايدي المعدنين والعملة التي تتحصل على اكبر قدر من الهاش ريت سوف يتم اعطائها اسم وكيان BCH على المنصات, وهدا ماحدث, هنا كان يمكن للمنصات ان تتجاهل تصويت المعدنين وتقول ان عملة BSV هي عملة BCH وتضعها للتداول ضد العملات الاخرى بهدا الاسم وتغير اسم العملة الاخرى لاي اسم او تقوم بحدفها تماما, عندها سوف تزيد قيمة BSV ويعتقد الناس انها هيا الاحق بالاسم والكيان ويتوجهو اليها ويتجاهلو العملة الاخرى.

لك ان تتخيل سيناريو مشابه للبتكوين, انفصال في البلوكتشين, تكون عملتين كل منها يدعي انه بتكوين, يمكن لباينانس ان تقول ان العملة س هي البتكوين, وتقول كوينبيز ان العملة ص هي البتكوين, عند استخدامك لمحفظة اليكتروم تكون مربوطة على بلوكتشين عملة س, ومحفظة تريزور على العملة ص.

لذلك يجب ان نفهم ان كل هاؤلاء الاجسام بما فيهم الشخصيات ذات التاثير القوي على يويتويب وتويتر لديهم دور كبير في تحديد هوية العلمة الحقيقية, ففي النهاية العملة التي تحظى باكبر اقبال من الناس هي التي سوف تكتسب اكبر قيمة ولديها فرص اكبر للبقاء.

اما عن سبب تسليم مهمة التصويت للمعدنين في معظم الاوقات فهدا الامر بديهي, واي شي خلافة يعتبر محاولة فرض امر واقع قد يكون مخالف لرغبة الجمهور, الاعتماد على الكود الموجود في العقد بدون Proof of work من غير المعدنين ايضا خطير جدا فالعقد معرضة ال Sybil attacks وانشائها لا يكلف شي تقريبا ويتم في دقائق معدودة, اي مؤسسة تريد تغير قوانين البتكوين يمكنها ضخ بعض الملاين وتشغيل 50 الف عقدة واكتساب الاغلبية وفعل ماتشاء, سيكون من السداجة عدم وضع المعدنين على راس الهرم فيما يتعلق بكل تغير.

بالاضافة الى ان المعدنين هم اكثر طرف لديه مايخسر من اي تزوير او هجوم, ومصلحة جيوبهم مرتبطة اربتاط وثيق بمصلحة البتكوين ككل, ايضا proof of work غير قابل للتزوير, لايمكن اخفاءه, لايمكن استحداثه من العدم في يوم وليلة, لذلك تجد ان المعدنين هم محور اي تغير, ومع ذلك ومنذ ولادة البتكوين لم يقم المعدنين بطلب تطوير معين او الغاء شي موجود على حد علمي, وكانت معظم التطويرات صادرة عن مطوري العقد بمباركة المعدنين, وعند توافق المطورين والمعدنين لايكون هناك مجال المنصات والمحافظ في تغير الامور, لان اي تغير يعني الوقوف العلني امام رغبة الاغلبية.

اثفق معك بخصوص ماقاله الاخ اوميقا, ولكن جزئية ان المعدنين لا تاثير لهم فهدا الامر قابل للنقاش, على الورق يمكننا القول ان نسبة العقد هي التي تهم, ولكن في ارض الواقع ليست كل العقد متساوية في "القوة" و "التاثير" ونوع التغير هوا الاساس.

لنأخد Segwit مثلا, هل يمكن للعقد مجتعمة اجبار المعدنين بقبول تحويلات Segwit ومنع تحويلات Lagecy ? لا يمكن, نظرا لانه لايمكنك ان تعمل invalidation لتحويل non-Segwit على العقد الاخرى, لذلك يمكن للمعدنين قبول الاتنين, يمكنهم ايضا عدم قبول اي تحويل Segwit والاكتفاء بقبول non-Segwit transactions فقط, لايمكن للعقد الاخرى تغير هدا الشي حتى لو كانت معهم الاغلبية المطلقة.

اعطيك مثال اخر اجمل؟

ماذا لو قرر كل المعدنين تغير حجم البلوك الى 200kb, هل يمكن للعقد الاخرى الاعتراض ؟ الاجابة لا, لان البروتوكول القائم يحدد القيمة القصوى لحجم البلوك ولا يحدد القيمة الصغرى لانه لايمكن فعل هدا اصلا, اذا يمكن للعقد ان تتتفق فيما بينها لرفع حجم البلوك لي 100ميقا, بينا يحافظ المعدنين على حجم بلوك نص ميقا ولايمكن لاحد فعل اي شي لتغير هدا مهما كان عدد العقد التي قامت بتفعيل ال 100 ميقا.

هنالك توازن مابين (المعدنين, منصات التداول, و المحافظ) اي تغير جوهري لابد ان يحظا بموافقة الاغلبية من مختلف التخصصات, بعض التغيرات يكون دور تخصص عن اخر اكبر, والاهم من هدا كله انه يجب ان نعلم ان المعدنين ليسو دائما في صف واحد ولا المنصات, كما ان بعض المعدنين واحواض التعدين قد لا تنظر للامور كما يعتقد الكثيرون والا فما مصلحة بتماين التي كانت تمتلك تقريبا 50% من الهاش ريت في محاربة Segwit والعمل بكل الطرق لمحاولة رفع سقف البلوك؟ مايقوله الناس ان بتماين تريد ان تزيد من عمولة التحويل لتكسب اكثر, ولو كان هدا صحيح لما حاربت من اجل رفع صقف البلوك.

من الصعب جدا فهم كيفية اجراء التغير على البتكوين, ولكن يمكن ان نقرب المثال ونقول ان العقد هي مثل جسم برلمان في احد الدول, بينما المعدنين هم الحكومة التنفيدية ولديهم اعضاء داخل البرلمان, لايمكن للحكومة كسر كل قواعد البرلمان, ولايمكن للبرلمان السيطرة التامة في قرارات الحكومة, نظرا لوجود دسكتور يتيح للحكومة تجاوز البرلمان في الكثير من الاحيان, او بناء على سياسة الامر الواقع التي تجعل من وضع البرلمان ضعيف في بعض القرارات لعدم وجود الية لتحيد امكانيات الحكومة, ولك خير مثال في قصة حجم البلوك, لا يمكنكك فرض حد ادنا لحجم البلوك الا ان كنت متأكد من ان mempool سوف يكون دائما ممثلا, ايضا لايمكنك تحديد صقف اعلى او حد ادنى لل fees بينما المعدنين يمكهم عمل ذلك ولا تستطيع العقد الاعتراض.

يمكن مثلا لمنصات التداول ان تقوم بعمل فورك جديدة وتعطي تلك الفورك ticker USDT/BTC وتفرض حقيقة ان تلك البتكوين هي الحقيقية والاخرى هي ال fork ولا قيمة لها, يمكن للمحافظ ان توحد بروتوكول فيما بينها يسمح لها بعمل شي ما لا يعجب المنصات او المعدنين, ولكن الامر في النهاية يرجع للتوافق وامكانيات كل طرف.

لايمكن شرح كل التفاصيل في منشور واحد ولا حتى عشرين, ولكن اتمنى ان اكون اعطيتكم فكرة بسيطة حول العلاقة الغريبة بين كل الاجسام المذكورة اعلاه.

What I mean by "compression" is in terms of both actions revolving around the same thing, which is a request to change the protocol, you compare that SegWit "change" to this "ban" change as if they are equally the same, which is why I said it's not a fair compression, back then, you had people who wanted to increase blocksize (Bcash folks with Bitmain siding them), basically just a small group of people who did not want that change to happen despite not having a major disagreement, they just thought their way of fixing things was better.

Banning ordinals now is a completely different story, it's not just Roger and his friends now, it's a large community of actual BTC users, a dozen YouTubers/influencers waiting for the core devs to take any "censorship" action so they can fill their social media content for the rest of the year.

My take on these ordinals and BRC-20 tokens will likely vanish or slow down close to nothing in a few months from now (I checked most top projects, telegram groups, and influencers and etc. The folks behind all this are too weak to sustain it, unlike how everything looks from the outside, the majority of those folks are just trying to get rich overnight and all of them will get rekt, move on with their lives and go back to living with their grandmother)

if we don't want to let the free market handle them, a ban of some sort shouldn't be carried out now while the hype is still high, just give them a few months, people will find a new "trend" and nobody will even notice that they were banned then.

They sure would, but would be adding a large number to the cost per th, I like to compare mining gears based on their labeled specs, I am sure the S19 XP too can probably do 18w/th with some underclock settings, default settings are what matters to me, MicroBT has an edge over Antminer which is the quality, the XP is better than the M50s++ in terms of delivery, it's today vs 5 months wait.

To me, the longevity of the gear is the most important aspect, I rather have a gear that is set to ROI in 10 months knowing that it would likely run for 30 months without issues, than a gear that could ROI in 6 months knowing that it will hardly run for 10 months, but all of that depends on your plan, power bill, access to the factory warranty, ability to fix your own hashboards and a dozen more reasons.

my model is simple, I have free and limited power, and I want to squeeze the most hashrate I can without having to pay the highest $/th, so I don't buy the newest models or else what's the point of having free power? I also don't want to buy old gears that will fill my farm without any considerable hashrate, this forces me to pick mining gears that can live for long since that's all I worry about, I make a profit as long as the gear is alive regardless.

Of course, someone else who pays a lot for power might be looking for other things, efficiency could be everything they care about, it's hard to assume what other people are thinking.

MicroBT release their new M50s++ with advertised efficiency of 21w/th, someone showed me a video of the miner doing 161th at 3368 on the power meter, that's slightly below 21w/th including the cooling fans, pretty much a huge jump from MicroBT, this is equivalent of Bitmain S19Xp which has 21.5w/th efficiency and a max hashrate of 141th.

Bitmain has always been ahead of the rest in terms of efficiency, making me think that a new version of the XP (maybe S21) will come pretty soon to beat the M50s++.

As for the price, the Antminer XP goes for about 22-23$/th, while M50s++ is pre-order for October and sells at a higher price 25-26$/th, it will be interesting to see how these two take it from here, not sure how much room there is for efficiency, Both use 5nm (TSMC and Samsung), gears seem to be pretty optimized, going below 20w/th will be pretty hard for both of them.

Price list update 25/05/2023

Stock:

M30S++106TH  13.4U/TH
M50S 128TH 26W 19.5U/TH
M50 112TH 29W    14.7U/TH
M50 120TH 28W    15.7U/TH
M53  260TH29W   18U/TH

Oct pre-order MOQ 30 pcs

M50S++  160th 21W  25.5U/TH

سوف اقوم باغلاق هدا الموضوع نظرا لاني بدات فعليا مع الاخ اوميقا منذ شهر تقريبا, وحتى الان كل شي يسير على مايرام, ربما احتاج لفتح الموضوع في المستقبل ان توقف الاخ اوميقا عن تطوير البرنامج لاي سبب من الاسباب اما في الوقت الراهن لاداعي لابقاء هدا الموضوع مفتوح ولكي لا اضيع وقت احد في ارسال رسائل خاصة حول الموضوع. كان يجب اغلاق الموضوع منذ فترة ولكني انشغلت ونسيت.

شكرا للجميع.

The PC or miner software isn't connected to the wallet, if you have the wallet files you can use it on any operating system that it supports, of course, most often that file will be encrypted and you will need a password to decrypt it so you can access the coins, but finding that wallet file is the first step to any "hope", if you have it, you have a good chance of remembering or even brute-forcing your way in, if you don't have it, your chances of meeting your coins again are 0.

بالنسبة للتطوير المقترح اعتقد انه ممكن ان يكون فكرة سيئة، تذكر ان ليس كل التحويلات هي عبارة عن نقل امولك من عنوان لاخر، ماذا يحدث عند شراء شي ما من موقع معين يتوقع وصول قيمة معينة ومن ثم يصل المبلغ منقوص، سوف تحتاج للتواصل مع البائع مجددا لكي يقوم بتفعيل نفس العنوان مجددا او اعطاءك عنوان جديد لتحويل ماتبقى من الرصيد.

اعتقد ان سلبيات الاقتراح اكثر من ميزاته.

اما النقطة التانية فلا يمكن الغاء تحويل الا عن طريق  ارسال تحويل اخر برسوم اعلى، لا احد يمكنه الوصول الى كل العقد ومسح تحويل منها.

ماقاله الاخ خالد صحيح , ولكن ليكون الشرح اوضح بالارقام, فاسمح لي:

ماحدث هوا انك قمت بتحويل 0.00372966 من اصل UTXO قيمتها 0.00375000 كنت قد تحصلت عليها في نفس اليوم في هده المعاملة


اذا قمنا بطرح الرقمين فالناتج سوف يكون 0.00002034 او 2,034 sats

حجم المعاملة كان 113 Bytes عندما تقوم بقسمة ال 2034 ساتوشي على حجم المعاملة سوف تحصل على 18 ساتوشي لكل vByte وهدا هوا الحد الاقصى الذي كان يمكنك اختياره والا فأن المحفظة لن تجد من اين تغطي القيمة المضافة بدون انقاص القيمة المرسلة, لو تمكنت مثلا من تغير القيمة المرسلة الى 0.0036483 مثلا, عندها سوف يكون الرصيد الاضافي 0.0001017 او 10,170 ساتوشي, بقسمته على حجم المعاملة 113  = 90

يعني كان يمكن زيادة الرسوم الى 90 ساتوشي لل vByte.

This is only what your government wants you to think, which U.S. mainstream media isn't controlled by either the Democrats or the Republicans in one way or the other? ya, they would reveal some part of the truth against one another just for political gains, but most often they are on the same line. How did George W. Bush manage to lie to every American that Iraq had  'weapons of mass destruction', his government managed to lie to everyone in the U.S, killed a dozen hundred thousand of innocent civilians and nobody confronted him when he was in power, ya Trump now uses that mistake against the Democrats to have some political gains, but it's only because it's now over.

It's funny that you think only your nations are built on a sea of truth while all other nations like Russia and China are built on an ocean of lies and dictatorship, alas, this confirms the theory that you have been lied to forever, your government has brainwashed you so perfectly that you are not willing to even reconsider the possibility that EVERYTHING you think you know is absolute garbage.

The same thing applies to the Russians and every other nation, the majority of people are brainwashed, what the Russians think of Americans or what the Americans think of the Chinese, it's all programmed in people's heads, only those who strive to seek the truth will find out that nearly every bit of information they had about other countries was wrong.

I was pleased with living in different countries, visiting so many places, and meeting people from all kinds of cultures and religions, it's how I came to understand that everything my government fed me was done to paint a perfect picture of them, and how everything they do -- is to protect our nation from all the bad enemies, only to realize that the real enemy is my government, not a country that is thousands of miles away from me.

It's pretty harsh on both the brain and soul to admit that you have been brainwashed, when you start diving into the truth, it will start hurting your feelings, which is why most people prefer to ignore anything that goes against what they think they know, it's a lot softer on the brain to keep existing lies than to bring on a new truth.

Not a fair compression IMO, SegWit implementation had no exclusion of a certain type or category of users, even the people who opposed it were essentially looking for the same goal that SegWit was going to accomplish they just thought their approach was better, maybe a few miners were upset about the fact that people can now transact cheaper using Segwit, but nothing major in terms of counter-arguments against SegWit.

This time it's different, many people will view it as "censorship", doesn't matter what we think of those folks who buy some money's png for a few thousand dollars, they still make a community, and the market cap of those BRC-20 tokens is now nearly half a billion $ in value, the trading volume of those tokens in the past 24H was $105,489,791, with nearly 30 projects built on BRC20, so it's not just a few mad folks who buy things that others think of as "worthless", they seem to have a large community, and many of those famous Youtubers and folks on Twitter bought into these shit tokens and are already promoting them, it is easy to understand the pressure on whoever leads a "ban" plan on these guys.

You are also going to have to convince mining pools to side with you and ditch the massive gains they started to make from those BRC-20 transactions, so a "ban" it is doable, but not easy at this point.

I'd argue the reality is 86 - 401, while your 1 sat/Vbyte transaction can go through it won't happen unless you pay 86 sats/Vbyte or more, nobody gets away with 1 sat when others are paying 86 sats, even the pool itself, it has to drop an 86 sat transaction to include a 1 sat transaction of the same size, losing 85 sat for every Vbyte included, of course, if they would charge you a 100 sat it means they made 100+1-86 = 15 sat/Vbyte but the "real" cost of that transaction on the blockchain still is 86 sat and not 1 sat.

TL: DR, the transaction fee is still at least 86 sat/Vbyte, doesn't matter how it was paid or who earned it.

Pools that offer this service are far from honest, like Viabtc does this, and don't share the rewards with the miners, it's technically stealing, as miners, you would take 85 sats /byte from us when you include your 1 sat transaction, and the fair approach would be to pay us extra 85 sats and keep the rest since that's a service you provide.

I think you missed the point here, I (I am sure so is Pmalek) did not assume the wallet comes with a pre-loaded seed, the point is, IF they can extract the seed phrase outside of the secure element and send it to a third party it simply means there is NOTHING in the hardware design that stops seeds and private keys from leaving the device, contrary to what ledger have always said.

So based on their own words (not mine), they were always able to gather every bit of information we never thought possible, now since the firmware is closed and nobody has a clue about what is inside it (at least for anything released after version 1.5.1 (2019) since that was approved by ANSSI), for all we know they could have been logging from/to addresses used, private keys and even seed phrase, of course, if you created a seed and did not connect your wallet to the app then it would be hardly unlikely for them to know the seed, but the moment you install those apps which reside on the SE and have direct access to the PK (also their words, not mine) they could start logging everything they want.

All that information is directly attached to the unique serial number of your wallet which doesn't disappear by formatting it or anything else, so this leads to another assumption that your real identity/home address/ credit card or whatever you used to purchase from them (since they only accept KYC payments) are all linked and could be stored in a database somewhere.

Of course, we are probably being a bit harsh on Ledger here, I don't claim they did or are doing all of this, I am simply stating the fact that based on THEIR own words, every assumption made here is technically valid, I wouldn't have the audacity to put forward these assumptions if they did not implement this cloud seed backup shit, but alas, it happened, we already know what are they capable of doing with their hardware wallets, it would be plain stupid to think that any of the assumptions people have about them now are not true.

حتى هده اللحظة لا اعتقد ان الشركة لديها اي نية في سرقة اموال الزبائن, كان من الممكن القيام بهدا بطريقة اخرى بدل من كل هده الدراما التي اخافت المستخدمين وانا متأكد ان محافظ ليدجر الان تتعرض للافراغ على مدار اليوم وان طلبات الزبائن الجديدة قد انخضفت بشكل ملحوظ, وحتى الان لا يوجد اي تقرير عن اي سرقة من قبل فريق المحفظة, لهدا اكرر على عدم الحاجة للهلع والتسرع في نقل الامول من المحفظة لان التسرع قد يسبب لك فقدان اموالك اما عن طريق ارسالها الى محفظة اقل امانا بكثير او ارسالها الى عنوان خاطيء او او.

يجب على المستخدمين اولا توفير مصدر جديد لنقل اموالهم, الجلوس بكل ارياحية وتجهيز المحفظة ومن ثم اخراج الاموال من ليدجر بدون تسرع وخوف ونضبات قلب متسارعة.

اعتقد انه هده احد ضرائب استخدام برامج غير مفتوحة المصدر, فابرغم من ان ليدجر اتبت عبر السنوات انها أمن محفظة ضد الاختراقات وطالما فازت  على منافستها Trezor في مجال الحماية, الا اننا نتفاجاء الان من ان كل ماقالوه بخصوص ان المفاتيح لا يمكنها ان تغادر شريحة الجهاز كان مجرد كذب.

What I meant is, there is nothing more they would be able to know just by receiving your hardware wallet again, they already know everything that they could reveal about you when you send it back.

The second part of the post is just a speculation of "what they might know" and that's based on the fact that in order to buy a ledger you have to undergo a KYC process, you need to use your credit card or KYCed crypto.com, and your home/work address, every wallet has a unique serial number, so they know person A who lives at B owns ledger wallet with a serial number of 123456.

in theory, they could know that person A's wallet generated seed x, and signed a transaction to move 0.1BTC to some address, used a certain address to receive funds, since there is no limitation on what could and could not leave the secure element, we certainly have no way of knowing what information were they collecting from the apps when they are connected to the ledger wallet.

Of course, all this is nothing but speculation, but in theory, they could know about everything that you worry about when sending them the hardware wallet back, so by spending your coins and sending it back -- there is nothing left to risk in that process, the risk has already been fully taken the moment you trusted their closed source firmware.

We all know Ledger is done, but the real concern for me now is "what is the current firmware", and wether people's funds are even remotely safe.

Their claim is that their firmware is audited by a 3rd party to make the users feel comfortable that their funds are safe and the firmware won't be able to steal their funds.

According to their Co-Founder who goes by the name btchip on reddit


Someone on their subreddit searched for the latest certificate they had and it was done for V1.2.5

I managed to find the ANSSI certificate for the nano-s version 1.5.1.

That seems to be the latest certificate they had there, so any firmware past that version could have anything in it.

What I found intersting in that report is the architecture of the wallet



It seems like the MCU does nothing but connect the screen/buttons to the secure elements, and the applications are actually installed ON the secure element itself where the firmware resids.

This means the claim that " you will have to physically press a button to sign a transaction" which they have always promoted is also a lie.

It's also mentioned on their website


So this means, funds were always "movable" without having to physically initiate an order from buttons that control only the MCU, so not only the firmware had access to the private keys, even the various applications including all of those shitcoins applications that were available to download from Ledger had access to your funds, so for all we know, you could install a shitcoin application on the secure element, which could have access to your BTC private keys or the whole seed phrase.

I think the former CEO really meant it when he said


You really have to trust Ledger both on the firmware and the application level, trusting someone with the physical chip design, firmware, and application is too much, you still to have to somehow trust all those open-source software hardware wallets since you don't know what's inside the chip, but that risk is minimal and there is nothing you can do about it, but having to trust the wallet maker with everything is stupid, even if they were dead honest, there are probably tens of devs maintaining those different apps and firmware versions, it's impossible to control the outcome even for Ledger folks themselves.

Stuffing more chips on a single miner and achieving higher hashrate regardless of efficiency isn't something MicroBT should brag about, Bitmain can do the same thing, however, MicroBT does beat bitmain and everyone else by setting the quality bar way too high, they managed to take a good portion of the market despite being slightly more expensive when wat/terahash is taken into account, Whatsminers are tanks, Bitmain lost it even since the S9s, they did improve drastically over the years since their massive failure on the s17 series, but they still can't beat MicroBT in terms of quality.

So technically speaking, being the most "powerful" or the "cheapest" or any other thing without a good balance of the rest of the things, is meaningless.

- Quality
- Efficiency
- Price

in no particular order, to me, Whatsminer has the best quality, pretty good efficiency, and an ok price, all Bitmain need to do to beat them would be to build a better quality, of course without affecting price and efficiency, which isn't realistic, so it seems like each of these companies are now forcing on one aspect and trying to sell that.

MicroBT > Quality
Bitmain > Efficiency
Avalon  > Price

At least this is what I noticed for the latest couple of generations these companies produced.

Moving your coins to somewhere else will be enough, there is nothing they don't already know in regards to the buyer's identity and the addresses they used, I just hope they won't make things even worse and sell the info that links the user identity/email/credit card/address to on-chain data (assuming they have not already done so).

But ya, overall, there is no harm in returning it and use that money to buy another proper wallet.