hello all
is there any possibility to mine eth with radeon 6970 2gb ram?
im getting now - GPU can't allocate the DAG in a single chunk. Bailing.
i cant get mining done with 270 too, mining was ok month ago... Mining Ethereum scales proportionally to the total amount of video RAM. All things equal, a card with more memory will perform better (to a point...a 4GB card probably performs about the same as an 8 GB). The problem with cards that have less RAM is the size of the DAG file. Its going to grow over time as POW mining continues. I had thought 2GB cards would be fine for some time, but your comment about the 270 not mining anymore and especially the DAG error in the previous post, tells me we have probably reached the limit. If that's the case there is no point in buying a 2GB GPU. It will not be possible to mine with it, because the DAG is too big for video memory. However I don't know if that's actually the case yet. Maybe some other people who have 2GB cards could provide some input? But at this point with Ethereum taking off, you should only be looking at 3+GB cards to purchase. If you have a 2GB already you could try deleting the DAG and letting it rebuild, but I don't know if that would actually make it any smaller. |
|
|
|
He'll only get what is coming to him, may take awhile but he'll be ruined.
I hope so, but unfortunately as long as he stays in China I'm not sure anything will happen to him. BTW I'm dropping a link to the Cryptsy Scam thread because a lot of this is being discussed there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1173703.0 |
|
|
|
|
What sort of hash rates are people getting with the 7950/7970 and the R9 270?
|
|
|
|
I see, so its mismanagement and greed? With relationship problem with his wife,and finally lead divorced his finances was affected that lead to devastation.What about this hacking incident (in cryptsy),its just a diversion?
I think its possible the "hack" was just a diversion. An excuse for why they were shutting down and why they had no money to return to customers (which was of course a lie. The wife has stated rather clearly in divorce proceedings that Vernon holds a significant amount in Crypto. This is almost certainly the Cryptsy funds). Vernon mentioned specifically in the divorce proceedings that income for the company had dried up weeks before any of the Cryptsy customers were notified, and that he expected the company to shut its doors. He even mentions he had no salary. The part about "economic conditions" I think was just to give the court an excuse. What I think happened was Vernon knew his wife would go after everything non crypto because the court would really have no way to get Vernon to give up his crypto holdings. So he made claims that the company was failing and had no income, and therefore had nothing to offer. Which it was actually failing, except that he conveniently left the reasons out, instead stating "economic conditions" as the cause. Personally I think this is a test of the American judicial system. Those holdings that are being fought over in court do not belong to either Vernon or his wife. They belong to Cryptsy customers. The fact that they're even allowed to have discussions about who gets assets that likely don't belong to either of them boggles my mind. |
|
|
|
Yikes - Cryptsy funds diverted to purchase 1.4million property in Florida. So what happens next? Is there a class action lawsuit with Cryptsy members? He also claimed that it would dissolve due to "economic conditions" - I am not understanding what he is talking about, isn't this just poor bookkeeping? What happens next is the lawsuit against Cryptsy has been updated to include the estranged wife of Paul Vernon. IMO this is good for Cryptsy customers, really bad for the wife. Its stated in the divorce filings that the majority of marital assets were held in crypto currencies, which are essentially out of control of the divorce court because Vernon has fled to China. But because the wife was also a beneficiary of the 1.4 million dollar home purchased with customer funds, they believe she's liable. It means the lawsuit might be able to recoup some additional money, but I wouldn't hold my breath. It sure seems to me that Paul Vernon had been planning this for some time. Scumbag. |
|
|
|
To double the nodes is impossible at this point (more coins than now exists) and don't you think something might happen to the price along the way? The rise in valuation would be insane and there's no liquidity in the markets anyway, both factors limiting what an attacker could buy.
And the benefits would be hard to see, beyond saying that it would be "broken" in that case, but no REAL damage to the network. Whether or not the previous probabilities are correct, the system has been designed to make sure that bad actors can't hurt Dash.
To add 3500 new nodes yes you're right there is not enough supply, as of right now. However some of that money could easily be used to buy off current MN owners instead of creating new ones, or the money could be used to bring down some of the ones already operating. And they would not all be added at once anyway. As I mentioned earlier this would be done over time, possibly years to create the illusion of a healthy network. Yes the price would go up but by how much? Even at $50 per Dash the costs are not prohibitive. And when the price goes up, the amount they receive in return from dumping their generated Dash would go up as well. Not to mention this creates sell pressure helping to keep the price down. I would also add that the low supply of Dash places a fundamental limit on the number of masternodes. Which means an attacker needs to acquire fewer MNs. I think this is something nobody has really considered. Earlier somebody made a comment about the Dash MN network being more decentralized over time. I think its going to be the complete opposite. It will be harder and harder for people to run their own MN over time simply because of scarcity, thus consolidating the network into a handful of people/entities. Its the centralized pool problem all over again. |
|
|
|
snip
I am NOT very good with statistics, but wouldn't the odds of "getting lucky" be infinitesimal without owning many hundreds (or thousands) of masternodes? Wouldn't the odds of securing an entire 10 MN quorum be on the order of:
#MNs Controlled / (3500 * 3499 * 3498 * 3497 * 3496 * 3495 * 3494 * 3493 * 3492 * 3491)
Or am I wrong?
With respect to economic incentive, good point. But the amount offered would have to be significantly greater than the market value, I would imagine. Also, surely any government realizes it would be very easy to just launch an entire new blockchain with the same code, yes? So why bother?
Should be more like this : % to be elected 10 in a raw = (#MNs Controlled / 3500 ) * (#MNs Controlled -1 ) / (3500 -1) * ... * (#MNs Controlled - 9) / (3500 - 9) *100 Did I do this right? If I were otoh and I still owned 500 MN (he is in the 400's now I believe) the chances of getting control would be 1 in 4.66676105146218 e-9 ? I'd say that's pretty astronomical. I'm not playing lottery again  If you want to play a numbers game fine. 500 MN = 500,000 Dash held as collateral. If we round up to $4 per Dash, thats $2 million. Currently there are 3500 MN on the network. If somebody wanted to double that it would cost 3500 * 1000 * 4 = $14 million. That's nothing. Not only that but as masternodes they would be generating Dash on their own, which of course would get dumped on the market to recoup some of the costs. |
|
|
|
As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation.
And if we are talking about governments... many MN are hosted on Clouds or larger VPN i assume... they would not even need to buy the DASH... just get control over the servers the MN is hosted. Or DDOS them to reduce the total on the network, which would be easier. Edit - albeit not as effective. Obviously if they can simply take them over that would be more effective |
|
|
|
And higher hashing power is more secure. The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.
This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security. For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time). Honestly, it's just not worth it. In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution. With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums. The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include. They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first. If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block. It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough. So please don't fret. Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner. I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that). As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power. Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network. Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them. To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...? And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down. It has to do with incentives. The biggest Dash pool makes what, a few hundred thousand dollars a year? Maybe a million? Collusion would be relatively inexpensive, because other than future lost profits, they don't have any skin in the game. Masternode owners do have skin in the game; if they somehow are bribed to allow malicious transactions to go through, they lose a possibly significant portion of their net worth. Lose future revenue from a pool? Or lose my entire (significant, if you are talking about the biggest holders) investment? Which is the bigger disincentive. P.S. For what it's worth, I hope the government does start buying Dash and creating malicious masternodes. By the time they were in a position to mount a successful attack, they would have driven the price of Dash into the hundreds of dollars per coin, if not more. I could retire rich! Not only that, but Evan could always fork Dash to Dash2 and restart the blockchain. Then the government has to attack that currency next...and then Dash3....and Dash4... And none of this mentions the improbability of gaining access to and corrupting all 10 masternodes in a quorum. It only takes 1 to screw up any chance. It also can be complete luck that you own all 10 in a quorom and have only a fraction of the total. The system is designed to pick masternodes at random, there is no reason you can't get lucky. The same reason a person with minimal hash power can execute a double spend in Bitcoin. This was my point from the beginning. I'm not trying to attack the masternode network I'm simply saying that the idea of it being "infinitely more secure" compared to a typical POW system is just not true. As far as economic incentive, is a million dollars really that much? If a government comes to you and says here have $10 million in cash you wouldn't hand over your masternodes? What about $50 million? I sure would. There are plenty of other cryptos to get behind. The entire marketcap of Dash is less than $25 million as we speak. The attack I've described would be trivial for somebody with a little bit of cash and motivation. |
|
|
|
And higher hashing power is more secure. The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.
This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security. For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time). Honestly, it's just not worth it. In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution. With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums. The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include. They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first. If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block. It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough. So please don't fret. Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner. I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that). As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power. Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network. Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them. To take over bitcoin the "bad guy" only needs to take over 2 or 3 pools... so you where saying...? And why can't the same person bribe 2-3 of the largest masternode holders? Its the exact same thing. My point was about new players entering and trying to bring it down. |
|
|
|
And higher hashing power is more secure. The higher the hash rate the harder it is for anyone to pull off a coup of the blockchain.
This is not correct. If you hand mining over from a decentralized system of tens of thousands of GPU miners to one ASIC manufacturer it does not increase the network security. For this reason we need to change the hashing algorithm from time-to-time, so that no ASIC can be produced (ASIC production takes a lot of time). Honestly, it's just not worth it. In a few months, the same amount of time that it would take to find a new algorithm, if not longer, and implement it, Dash will be on Evolution. With Evolution, transactions will be approved by Masternode Quorums and the hash will only be used to randomly group these Masternodes into quorums. The miners will still include transactions into the blockchain, however, they will have no choice as to which transactions to include. They must only include locked transactions that passed a Masternode Quorum first. If they try to include anything else, it will be rejected by the Masternode network and the miner will lose the block. It simply will become a new and infinitely more secure network soon enough. So please don't fret. Once this is in place, it won't matter if we only have one single miner. I'm not sure this makes the network any more secure at all...in fact it could very well weaken it. There is still nothing to prevent somebody from creating a malicious masternode. In standard POW systems, you have to achieve some level of hashrate close to 50% to be able to do some significant damage. (its worth mentioning there is general misconception that you need 51% hash power but that simply guarantees the attack will succeed. You can successfully execute double spends with much less hash power than that). As a typical POW network grows (i.e Bitcoin), the overall hashrate will grow. That means a major player wishing to disrupt Bitcoin has to spend more to pull off the attack. For example if the US government wanted to kill Bitcoin they might have to spend billions designing, manufacturing, and deploying enough asics rapidly to overtake the network. At a certain point (we might already be there) that becomes impossible. The amount of money they have to spend would be astronomical, and don't forget the network would continue to grow as they move toward deployment so maybe they get done and they still don't have enough hash power. Now as for Masternodes....like I said earlier there is nothing to stop somebody from creating a "bad" masternode. So if you're a major player, like the US government, now all of a sudden you don't have to build and deploy any hardware at all. They can spend the same amount of money producing asics, but instead just buy Dash. Once they have enough, they set up their bad masternodes and start wrecking things. The Masternode system significantly reduces the amount effort it would take for a new player to overtake the network. Some people might point out that there is a new masternode selection method that takes age into account. So what? A bad player isn't capable of bringing them online slowly? In fact it would actually make more sense that they take a little bit of time. If they accumulate Dash over time setting up masternodes as they go, everything looks fine. It could even be mistaken as a healthy network because the price will go up from the purchase of so much Dash and more nodes are going online which at first glance appear valid. At a certain point they just need to "flip the switch" on their bad masternodes and the network now belongs to them. |
|
|
|
Would like to put out there a new discussion topic for some thoughts. Its never really been brought up anywhere that I've seen, but the strong possibility that one or more of the exchanges in this space are being run by law enforcement or other "government" agencies for the purpose of tracking this ecosystem.
The reason I bringing it up is I remember several years ago this exact thing being done by law enforcement in where they setup a fiat currency exchange store front for the sole purpose of ensnaring individuals involved in "money laundry" activities. The store front was legitimate and was being used by all sorts of everyday people needing exchange services as well as those using it for nefarious purposes.
The point being...who's running the exchanges currently being used? That to me...is the single biggest point of weakness in this whole space.
For a community, all crypto currencies, that pride themselves in creating or developing secure and private transactions...it seems to be a gapping hole and massive weak spot.
As long as people are relying on exchanges to do fiat <-> crypto conversions, this possibility will always exist (and its not specific to DASH). The only way to remove the possibility is to stop the dependency on exchanges. Essentially this means you need to do all your business in DASH, or any other crypto, without ever touching Fiat. You can place blame on the exchanges but they're just doing what they're supposed to do...exchange money. There are rules regarding businesses that exchange money, and the crypto based exchanges must follow them if they want to continue business. |
|
|
|
homestead RC1 is out
is that mean mining will stop completely soon ? My understanding is that mining will continue as POS after a switch from the current POW mechanism. There is some sort of proposed mechanism that will make the POW mining extremely difficult at the same time a POS algorithm (called Casper) is launched. So I think there will be a period where Ethereum is both POW and POS, but the idea is that POW mining should come to an end very quickly because it will not be possible to profit. I'm not really sure if POW will eventually be disabled entirely, but that would seem to make sense. Also this mechanism does not currently exist, its simply been proposed, although its pretty likely the developers have at least some of the working code done already. I've seen a lot of dates floated around but the truth is the software as proposed, doesn't exist yet. Setting a date would be pointless right now because its just not close enough for public deployment. I imagine it will happen by the end of 2016, or early 2017 at the latest. |
|
|
|
Which Exchange is best for buying/Selling ETH?
shapeshift.io anonymous and pretty fast, ETH to BTC from shapeshift.io: WARNING: Ether is currently in its “Frontier” phase, which is highly experimental. Ether transactions (on both ShapeShift and other exchanges) will take 3 hours to confirm (and your exchange rate isnt determined until that confirmation happens) The only exception is if you use our “specific amount” feature (in which case we will lock your rate for 10 minutes as long as we receive the ether within those 10 minutes, but it will still take 3 hours to receive your BTC on the other end). Consider Ether highly risky during Frontier – no guarantees are made about anything, whatsoever. lol They have to put that there, as a disclaimer. But that doesn't mean that their services don't work flawlessly. I have used them several times and have exchanged about 5 BTCs worth so far. Never had any problems! Why 3 hours...? That's something like ~600 confirmations. Seems rather excessive. |
|
|
|
So DASH isn't that anonymous after all it seems. This shouldn't surprise anybody. Blockchain analysis is turning into a pretty big field, and the same principles that apply to Bitcoin will apply to DASH. Yes DASH has a mixer, but at its heart it works the same as Bitcoin utilizing addresses and transactions that are publicly accessible and traceable. Unless the DASH team is working non stop to harden their mixing service it will eventually be defeated. Or at least somebody will have a software tool that is able to correlate addresses well enough to de-anonymize the largest users. |
|
|
|
The time has come to finish mining btc. Can anyone tell me , which pool is the best to start with, what wallet etc. i.e. with btc, there is shit going on with spv and chinese pools, is it similar issue here? any ltc pools which i should avoid? Looks like im convert  thanks for any info The Chinese dominate the mining scene in LTC. If you think its bad in BTC...about 75% of the total hash power on the LTC network is located in China, and mining on Chinese pools. In fact there are really only a handful of scrypt ASIC producers, all of them located in China. Its not a great situation but its not as bad as some people make it out to be. There is no incentive for the Chinese miners to harm Litecoin, they stand to lose more than anybody else. IMO this is just the result of a free market...the only people who saw profit in producing scrypt asics reside in China. They're either smarter than the rest of us, or we're all just lazy. As a new miner you should stick to litecoinpool.org (where I'm currently mining) or if you don't mind a small pool, https://www.wemineltc.com/As for a wallet, Litecoin Core works just fine and you can download the bootstrap file to speed up the blockchain sync. Otherwise if you're ok with an SPV client the Electrum LTC wallet is very good. I assume when you say "shit going on with spv" when referring to Bitcoin you're talking about some of the proposed changes (RBF for example) that could make SPV clients unstable. None of that is going on in Litecoin. SPV clients are just fine, and are not under threat. |
|
|
|
According to Novak's best guess, the problem was that USB2 was limited to 1000 packets per second regardless of size. Not sure if USB3 has the same problem.
Well that's interesting, and does make some sense because USB uses what they call a "fixed frame structure" meaning each packet of information is predetermined in size, regardless of the information being transmitted. Unless there is a way to actually combine packets to make use of any unused space, it would not be possible to go over this limit. Regarding USB 3.0 I don't really know if the frame structure was changed, however I do know that USB 3.0 is Full duplex whereas USB 2.0 is not. So theoretically this means on a USB 3.0 hub, work could be provided to the miners at the same time work is being submitted to the pool. On a USB 2.0 hub information has to take turns because its only half duplex. I would imagine this should improve the performance...but how much? I have no idea. |
|
|
|
I think this is at least the third time you've been told this, but with your 49-port hub the limitation won't be power. The limitation will be USB's packet throughput limit, which will cap your total hashrate to about 300GH per connection (which is to say, per hub) due to not being able to keep them provided with work.
I have hubs that I can split the miners.. I just want to test both devices I have raspberry pi and the Udoo quad.. I want to see how fast the system works.. when I run Cgminer with Udoo it is much faster, more responsive then the pi. the pi seems slow motion compared to UDOO. that might play a factor also. Since the UDoo runs Ubuntu 14.04. Not sure what you are talking about re more responsive-probably how interface "feels", right? Yes, pi B+ and pi zero are slower than pi 2 rev B, but it has absolutely NO influence on hashing speed whatsoever (I checked). Also, having usb 3 vs usb 2 hub also has no effect, apart from most usb 2 having low amperage per slot, but there are exceptions. I understand the difference in power but a USB 3.0 connection also allows for max throughput of 5 Gbps compared to 480 Mbps on a USB 2.0 connection. If throughput is a problem then upgrading to USB 3.0 would certainly help. The question is does anybody make a 49 port USB 3.0 hub? |
|
|
|
I don't see why mining with ASICs will make that much of a difference. Sure some of us will give up mining, but I only do it for the fun. I made a whopping $4 over a whole year of mining on my little USB antminers over the whole of last year, and probably $8 on Dash, LOL. There are still big GPU miners that were getting a little more use out of their cards after Bitcoin and litecoin. Sure, some of them were holders, but most of them dumped their coins on the market, just like ASIC owners will. What's the difference? At least that bot miner will lose out And besides, since the begining, Evan said he wanted X-11 to be asic resistant enough for Dash (then Darkcoin/Xcoin) to have a chance to mature with plenty of decentralization. We knew this day would come, and it's taken over 2 years to get here. I think Evan did quite well, and the fact that they've made an ASIC that can hash 11 algos - which is a pain in the butt, is a great sign of our staying power. So all you fear mongers are pretty silly, IMO. Dash is growing as predicted and healthier than ever. As far as market price goes, that's just insanity and doesn't matter at all. The only thing that matters now is adoption. +1 This. The point of mining was never for the miners to get rich, its to provide network security. The entire concept of Proof of Work came about because it was determined somebody submitting a block needed to do some sort of "work" to prove the validity of the block. The block reward is just that, a reward, for doing the work necessary to submit a valid block. The intention was not for miners to get rich, it was to reward them for spending actual resources (time, money, etc) to secure the network. This fear of asics is totally unfounded in my opinion. An ASIC chip can perform the operation of mining significantly more efficiently than a typical GPU or CPU. So if we're working in a system that is designed to be strengthened by adding computational power, why would we not do everything possible to increase the computational power of the network? ASICs will always consume less electricity, and as efficiency improves we can improve our hashrate further without increasing the demand for power. If for example, I have a 100 W data center running all GPUs, I'm not going to simply replace my hash power with ASICs and only use a fraction of my available power. Instead I would buy more asics and still consume the same amount of power, but increase my hash rate significantly. This is what we see happening in Bitcoin and it makes sense it would happen for any other crypto as well. And if you believe in a future where Dash is actually serving as a world currency with millions of daily users, all secured by the miners, ask yourself which would you prefer: A bunch of hobbyists running stacks of open air GPU frames in their basement (which fundamentally limits the amount of hash power available) or professionally maintained data centers running racks of asics? I think the answer should be obvious. |
|
|
|
Anyone know what been going on with the prices lately with this coin. Am guessing massive pump and a big ass dump at the top and back down to normal prices again?
There's been some heavy market speculation I think because of the uncertainty surrounding the possible Bitcoin hard fork. I think some smart investors are just hedging in case the Bitcoin price tumbles, and its caused a spike and subsequent collapse in the price of ether. Just my 2 cents. Personally though the price of ether today, tomorrow, next week, or even next year does not matter to me. Ethereum I believe has a great future but its got a long way to go before its ready for significant real world usage. I wouldn't pay much attention to the price of Ether right now, its going to have a lot of ups and downs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
