Here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=75.0

This is the SHA256 mining board. Try https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=160.0 or https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=75.0

I'm waiting for the SPTech mining solar panels 

This is what most people forget when they are bashing 21inc!

Wasn't expecting this from you Miners should know how to sign messages!


Spammer admin is spammy.

I was interested in pool's biggest share for all time, but it was just for fun.

When you promise 0.3W/GH and end up with 1W/GH that IS a scam!

Also paying 8M$ to Innosilicon who also stole their IP for this efficiency is very very dumb! GJ!

We want more infoz!

Hey -ck would you consider displaying the biggest share found up to date?

Was just about to post this. Ok. The popcorn is on you now!


What if having a router, TV, DVR, consoles and so on can make you get rid of the internet&tv subscription? I bet that many people would like to stop paying for some kind of subscription package while having these devices plugged in even if they have to pay a bit more for power? I think there are at least a couple hundred thousand households that would take this deal.

My guess is that the hubs will be built just as a pilot project. It would be absurd to work on deploying millions of routers without testing the waters first with a couple of thousand of hubs. Imagine them as mining USB sticks. Very bad $/GH, but people still bought them even when they were clearly unprofitable.

The power bill for a 100MW datacenter at 0.05$/kwh is 500k$ right? And that's only one datacenter. Why have this burden every month when you can migrate it to someone else with less headache?


Exactly! I hope jimmothy acknowledges your post.

They must include the option to turn of the miner because otherwise it would be stupid.

Ok you have a point, but since we have agreed to rule out the USB hubs/chargers let's move on from this subject because this will not be their main product. This is only their testing phase and yes they can afford to sink a couple hundred thousand for testing stuff. From what I know the R&D from Apple eats up to 1B$ per year. I am sure that Apple had some failed products/tests. Same thing can apply here.


You lost me here. Let's clarify things. Isn't opex an ongoing cost for 21 inc? If consumers are paying for power that's not a cost for 21 inc. Unless you see it as they give up 25% in order to gain 75%. For me the opex is nil. It's less than 1 beer per month in most decent countries.

If your view is different please explain.


I actually agree with you on this one.

I wouldn't say putting mining cores in regular chips is a great idea, but it's definitely not absurd like putting chips in a toaster/phone charger/microwave/etc.


Fine. That makes it 600k for 100MW and this also comes with a huge monthly opex that is non-existent in case of 21 inc. 21 inc will mine "on the cloud" with minimal costs 


Well I think it's more than obvious that the consumers will mine at a loss. If they keep only 25% of the earning and they are still making a profit then everyone will start mining just like in 2013 and difficulty will spike again.

Why can't you accept this fact? That consumers will mine at a loss? I have days when my TV is open all day, but I don't watch it. I have days when I forget the lights open and they stay open the whole day and night. Those are money burned that will bring me no benefit, but it's just spare change. I don't care about an extra 1-2$ per month. Nobody will care. This subject is really useless. There are far more important and more dangerous things to discuss than this.

Why is everyone pointing towards his personal projects (not business) when he is pointing out some obvious facts? What do these have in common? Should he not point out the obvious just because he had an unsuccessful personal project?

Well I assumed that a standard LAN plug would be cheaper to user and less prone to hacking than wi-fi.

The idea isn't bad at all. The implementation on the other hand can be wrong or bad.


Well let's see the math. Go ahead

From my point of view the opex is non-existential. The capex is very low and we still don't know who will pay for it. At this point I can easily ignore the 35$ USB charging hubs. I don't like them so much, but the routers and mining cores into regular chips seem a very good idea with minimal capex.


LOL. The devices are controlled by the people. They can power them off whenever they want or they can just stop the mining. That IS control.

Also we don't know yet how will the mining be managed, but they suggested some sort of p2pool. We don't know yet if and how that will be possible, but my fear is not about the centralized hashing power. I'm more afraid that 21 inc will handle most of the newly generated coins. But I don't see any incentive for them to screw things for everyone with their huge amounts of coins. Having a centralized hashrate seems more dangerous than just holding the most of the newly generated coins. At least for me.


Again wrong. How on earth can you compare the capex of these 2 situations? Any large player that wants to deploy much hashrate must invest into a good datacenter and into all the required infrastructure which means power and cooling. That adds up fast in terms of capex while having "miner in everything connected to a wall outlet" makes those datacenter costs obsolete.

How much do you think that a 100MW datacenter would cost to be ready for miners deployment? I think that the costs to have 500MW ready for miners are less than the costs directed towards "miners to all" program.. Step 3 from their plan indicates  0 capex


Well I don't have all the answers, but I'm not rejecting everything from the start just like you do. The problem here is that you are completely ignoring/rejecting this while I'm simply stating that there is always this possibility. We are not business man so it's a bit hard for us to think of such services, but I am 100% sure that there is at least one "various service that derives from mining". Back in the '80s or '90s the services derived from the Internet were very small and look at today's situation. There are tons of services that derive from the Internet which were something unimaginable in the '80s or '90s. The same can be applied to Bitcoin.


Multiplying the amount by 3 to make it look bigger will still bring the same reply from me. Nobody cares about 60$ in 3 years because the invoice would be monthly and the amount would be too small for anyone to care.

Also 21 inc will not enforce units to mine and one single miner in a household will be enough for their plan.

Friendly bet of 0.1 BTC that we will not see any class action lawsuits in the first year after these devices are being put up on the market?

We don't know yet how will the devices manage the mined satoshis. My thinking is that they will do it somehow internally meaning that they will not directly transfer the satoshis everytime a block is found. Instead the consumers will have some sort of "credit" in their accounts and they can use that credit to purchase various stuff. I am sure that 21 inc knows how bitcoin works and finding a solution that will flood the network will not be ok for anyone involved in the project.

Also if we managed to have some spam restrictions when SatoshiDice was spamming the network I am sure that we can find a solution in case of 21 inc too.

Grats on your clean Trust rating

I am sure that every big company like Qualcomm has various internal projects that will never bring any benefit to the company, but at least they have tried. Human evolution is based on trial and error so I don't see anything wrong with trying new stuff. They are the best ones to do it because they can afford the loss of the implied resources.


Well I don't see wi-fi as being mandatory and also a hardware wallet in every usb charging device would be a waste of money. I don't know what tthe $35 capex means. We'll have to see.


From plans to actually doing it there is a big road. Also if you can build a 20MW datacenter from scratch in weeks, it doesn't mean you can do it the same with 100MW. You also need to fill it and it must make economical sense to do it. KnC may had plans when the market was better for doing this. Building it now wouldn't make any sense, but deploying hashrate in millions of households makes much more economical sense.


Here you went too far with the thinking The state is unable to provide much more important services like healthcare and retirement funds. This will never happen.


Mining must be decentralized with having miners in every home, otherwise we will be in a constant fear of an attack. If one party can afford cost efficient medium/large scale operations then it means that some other malicious party can also do it and that's obviously a bad thing. If mining is so decentralized that we have a miner in every household then no malicious party can join this. If KnC (a company that exists since 2013) can afford a 100MW datacenter then I am sure that Goldman Sachs can easily deploy 10x 100MW datacenters if they really wanted to do damage.


Wrong! There can be a situation where everyone or most of them can mine at a loss. They can mine at a loss as long as they can get the money from other various services that derive from mining. It's like paying for Internet. Nobody has a direct revenue from paying their internet subscription, but they can generate money from various services that are possible with the help of the Internet.


I am sorry, but nobody cares about an added yearly cost of 20$. Maybe some people in Africa will care, but other than that nobody cares. Also $20/year seems a pretty big amount. My view is that this cost will be lower than 20$/year.

Theymos please make the notice for changing the password more visible. Maybe bold it or put it in red. Right now I find it very easy to miss it.

We, miners, shouldn't be afraid of big amounts of BTC 

Will buy them for 0.0067!