That's the thing!
Those shouldn't be run as a business!
But it is a business to many people, you may treat it however you like but that won't change the fact that large corps treat it as a business because profit is involved, it's good that you brought up the full node part because it's likely that the majority of nodes are run by individuals, even the same people who run many of them do it for a good reason (better connectivity), but if it had it any direct benefit "money" then large corps would own most of the running nodes -- regardless. So until we get to the point where the entire market of Bitcoin mining is incredibly small to the point where no large corps would be interested in it -- home miners will not be able to compete, but when will that time come? I don't think I'll live long enough to see it. "Nobody" is way to harsh, not all of them currently being able to make a dent yes, indeed perfectly true, as for the future it's matter of money!
When farms can't get a ROI in 60 months on 4 cents per kwh then it's time for the dent in the marketshare! "Nobody" was likely the outcome of my limited English vocabulary. Arabic is my mother tongue, so I believe my restricted English proficiency should be valued by you.  But yeah, I don't mean literally nobody, because then all it takes is you running that miner to prove me wrong,  . I just meant, not too many people. You need something that you don't care it's on or off, for your average Joe that would be something under 100W, well ..depeding on the region.
Ya, you are right, something like an old 100w light bulb that won't break the bank if you leave it on 24/7, but then again, 1000w for something that would actually make you some $$ would make more sense to some people, every house is different, so getting the best number is not going to be easy, anyone planning on doing so would need to make 100w, 250w, 500w, 750w and 1000w then see which one is selling the most, if i was a home miner I would get the 1000w because I can safely run that without going broke. |
|
|
|
Stompy I have so many things to reply to your comment but then we are going to turn this into a political discussion and you probably won't like whatever I have to say. so ya i will stop there and go back to "mining" Wait, let's not go for zeus price but for prepackaged chips!
So not $40 but 5000/324 so that would be $15.
Again, I don't know shit about the rest and the prices for it , Skot was still active lately here so he might throw around a number and I think we could drop the above quota to 4 or 5 if we talk massive manufacturing and not 100 orders!
If you are going to buy miners and extract the ships, then that can't be a mass production of any sort, you are also going to pay a lot more on labor work to get those chips removed and cleaned to be ready for a new installment, but i understand what you are talking about. The thing is, you are going to need a controller, some cooling, and you are pretty limited by "how many chips" you can put in a single board to keep it as quiet and easy to run. So it may not be 150$/th but surely not even close to large miners. It would be very difficult to make these small miners for anything less than 5 times the cost. I don't understand why you're fixed on solo mining and why those couldn't be part of a p2pool?
It's because I think nobody is going to spend 150$ or whatever it is just to get $2 a month, and also the fact that all of them combined would never reach a hashrate high enough for large miners to give a fudge about them. Obviously, at some point in the future, things could change, but not to a degree where group of small individuals beat large corps in a business, can you name any other business where such thing actually happens? i can't think of any. It would be great for home miners to add a little heat to their rooms, and get a shot to win big, but I don't think the impact on the whole network will even be noticeable. I think what Avalon is doing has a greater chance of "success" or something like what phill mentioned above, something in the 1kw range and 30-40th, but these little experimental cute toys are just.. fudge without chocolate.  |
|
|
|
رغم ما يمكن أن تتسبب فيه من مغالطات للمبتدئين. تن لم يقم بتصحيح بعض الأخطاء الواضحة فوقتها أعتقد أنه من الأجدر التبليغ عن هذه المواضيع لحذفها برغم الجهد المبذول فيها.
اخي خالد هل يمكنك اقتباس بعض الاخطاء الواقعة في الموضوع؟ طبعا للاسف لم اتمكن من قرائته نظرا لحجمه, اتمنى منك ومن الاعضاء الاخرين توضيح الاخطاء الثقنية الموجودة في هدا الموضوع. شكرا |
|
|
|
Theoretically having millions of those devices and 10-20 pools with the devices having an algorithm that randomly changes the pool every every now and then and with people not caring about how much that things consume and how much it earns.
Ya but that is a lot of "ifs" which we all know isn't going to happen, there are not enough people (millions) who can afford and care about "mining decentralization" without caring about the cost/profit, also given that we talking $100-200 per th, it just not going to happen, even if you had millions, speaking of the device in the this very topic, it does 0.7th per device? so you are going to need 1.4M of them to obtain 1EH which is not even 0.2% of the total hashrate, so what are the numbers we talking about? we want these small miners to gain 25% of the network hashrate? great then we need 210,000,000 of them. I know what you are saying is "in theory", I am just saying it's not even possible in theory. you could achieve something decentralized like a like a torrent distribution network where everyone even with 10gb and 10mbit is contributing to the network. Torrent is built on a different structure, anything above 0 data and bandwidth will benefit the network, even if it's a 1kb txtfile and an old dial up connection you would actually contribute to the overall streght and availability of the P2P network, in BTC, it's different, if you are not finding blocks -- you are just burning electcity for no good reason. And as the hashrate grows and so does the need of electricity, how many countries out there could host it? I believe the opposite will be true, the more times goes buy, the less eleciticty BTC would use, of course, we are not there yet, but I think of it as climbing a mountain, we would get to the top of it and then start going down, the only reason why the market still allowes electcity growth is because we have not hit the effiecny wall and the rewards are still huge, eventually, when there is a little room left for hardware improvement, and the block rewards are next to nothing, there bitcoin ecosystem won't have a room large for everyone. Obivouslly, given that we don't know which gears are running at the moment, we could have already been in that stage, talk for an instance the S9 era where hashare was in the 60EH, it has grown by a factor of 10 today, obviously, the power consumption did not, and if we were to assume that it was only S9s then (the most effiecnt at the time) and assume that it's all S21 or M60s today, then effiency has improved by 80%. 60EH back then needed 6,000MW (if all are S9s) 600eH today needs 12,000MW (if all are latest gen miners) So while we increased the hashrate by 900%, we increased the consumption by only 100%. Obviously, not all gears today are 20w/th, also not all gears back then were 100w/th, these numbers are somewhat random to explain my point of how in the future we would likely be able to achieve power demand decrease. Russia and I really don't think that having that country host an important share of the hashrate would be that much of a great idea
Is that a politically biased opinion or there exists a valid technical reason behind it? But regardless of what you think about said country, I doubt you think they are worse than China, do you? the Chinese had control over bitcoin mining, and nothing happened, personally, I don't believe "evil" would exist in the mining business regardless of the government views of BTC, I highly believe that rich people are stronger than all governments, if there exists a country where a few rich people own 20-30% of the total hashrate, it means they are strong enough for any government to screw them over, I know what some legacy media might tell you about countries that are ruled by a single man -- they say the same thing about my country, but I know such things don't exists, power resides where money resides, the government (or otherwise a single handed man) is only strong enough to control the average citizens, the rich -- will always operate as they please and will always do what's best for their investment. So ya, we could say x country is bad and y country would be a better option for BTC mining, to me, I don't care what the second country is, even if it was in a different planet, it's certainly better than all of it being in one place, but again, as we know, people from different countries/planets can always come together, sit behind closed doors and do whatever the fudge they want to do. |
|
|
|
If I say Electrum can Bitcoin Core kick me from the campaign rightfully?
Yes they can, and probably should. I see your point, but I feel like things are a little mixed up here, there is a huge difference between telling someone "what to say-- what not to say", Icopress would be in the wrong if he said "Users who don't recommend x wallet would be removed" or "You have to post in the ann thread every day to get paid" These things are against the forum rules, and this is where the forum rules end as far as signature campaigns are concerned. Things like "You shouldn't be recommending y wallet when x wallet is paying you to advertise it" is pretty reasonable, and is not against the forum rules, you may call it whatever you want, but it's not against the forum rules, and it's within the boundaries of real business, if I was paying Icopress to manage my campaign and I see him pick users who recommend other competitor services I would be mad at him, I want the best results for the money I spend, what the users feel shouldn't be my problem, it's only business. If I see someone wearing x wallet, and goes to recommend y, z wallets without mentioning x, I would think that x wallet team and their ad campaign are dumb as fuck and probably their whole product is, not because they didn't "force" that user to recommend their business, but because they picked someone who is so incompetent to advertise for them. The real question however is, if Sparrow wallet had a running campaign with a much lower pay rate, would said user join that campaign instead? pretty hard to tell, personally I wouldn't like to be in a campaign where I am told what to say or not say, but out of respect to the people paying me -- I would not recommend competitors without recommending them, despite the fact that I have also stressed on the difference between advertising and endorsement, it's only ethical that you don't advertise for a competitor. If the service you advertise sucks to the extent that you can't even recommend it -- you are in the wrong place, and you are just desperate for money. |
|
|
|
For those who are interested in using a mining proxy that works with most mining pools has a nice GUI and is very stable -- I would recommend Antproxy, yes, despite how much I hate Bitmain, I find their proxy to be the most stable free proxy out there, and I have been using it for a few years now without an issue (it does crash like once every a few months for reasons which I have not confirmed yet, but I wrote a script to "fix" it and it's included below)  Here is how the GUI looks. The installation is rather simple Log scriptimport requests
import subprocess
import time
import traceback
# Construct the path for the log file in the "Documents" folder
log_file_path = r'C:\Users\Public\Documents\log_file.txt'
def log(message):
try:
with open(log_file_path, 'a') as log_file:
log_file.write(message + '\n')
except PermissionError as e:
print(f"PermissionError: {e}")
traceback.print_exc()
except Exception as ex:
print(f"Exception during logging: {ex}")
traceback.print_exc()
def restart_windows():
try:
print("Restarting Windows in 15 seconds...")
time.sleep(15)
subprocess.run(['shutdown', '/r', '/t', '1'])
except Exception as e:
log(f"Exception during restart_windows: {e}")
traceback.print_exc()
def check_hashrate():
try:
# Get current date and time
current_datetime = time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
# Send an HTTP request
response = requests.get('http://127.0.0.1:4444/proxies.json')
# Parse the JSON data
data = response.json()
hashrate = data['Hashrate']
print(f"{current_datetime} - Hashrate: {hashrate}")
log(f"{current_datetime} - Hashrate: {hashrate}") # Log date/time and hashrate information
if hashrate <= 3:
log("Hashrate is below 2. Restarting Windows...")
restart_windows()
except Exception as ex:
# Log the exception message with stack trace
log(f"Exception during check_hashrate: {ex}")
traceback.print_exc()
def check_ping():
try:
# Get current date and time
current_datetime = time.strftime("%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S")
# Send a ping request
response = subprocess.run(['ping', '-n', '1', 'www.google.com'], capture_output=True, text=True)
# Extract average ping result from the response
ping_result = response.stdout.splitlines()[-1].split('=')[-1].strip()
print(f"{current_datetime} - Ping Result: {ping_result}")
log(f"{current_datetime} - Ping Result: {ping_result}") # Log date/time and average ping result
except Exception as ex:
# Log the exception message with stack trace
log(f"Exception during check_ping: {ex}")
traceback.print_exc()
try:
while True:
# Check hashrate every 60 seconds
check_hashrate()
# Check ping to www.google.com every 10 seconds
for _ in range(6):
check_ping()
time.sleep(10)
except KeyboardInterrupt:
print("\nScript stopped by user.")
except Exception as ex:
# Log any unexpected exception
log(f"Unexpected exception: {ex}")
traceback.print_exc()
# Pause before exiting
time.sleep(5)
After years of using it, I found it's missing a major function which is "logs", if something happens you just have noway of knowing what was it or when did it happen, also as mentioned above in the rare events of the proxy freezing or throwing some error which is usually due to internet connection loss, the script will reboot the PC because that seems like the easiest fix for the freezing issue given that closing/reopning the proxy might not fix all issues. The above script will do the following: 1-log the proxy info to C:\Users\Public\Documents\log_file.txt >> you can change the txtfile or remove the whole function if you want. 2-Get the current hashrate reported by the proxy every 60 seconds, display and log the results -- restart the PC if the hashrate is below x (x is 3PH in the code, you may change it to whatever your hashrate is) 3-Ping google every 10 seconds, display and log the results The log file my scprit creates will be like this  You may not need to ping every 10 seconds, but I like it this way, I can come back anytime and see if my internet has dropped at any moment or ping time increases. Obivosully you need to create a a batch file (a txtfile change to .bat) hosted in your startup folder which runs the script with a command like echo off
TIMEOUT /T 600
python C:\Users\M\Desktop\pyton\testscript.py
pause You would also need to put a shortcut to the proxy executable in the startup folder so that it runs when your PC boots. Pools I have tested and remember to work: Viabtc Kano.is Antpool Binance *if you have any questions regarding mining proxies in general or a technical issue running this partiuclar one, feel free to ask here. |
|
|
|
|
Whatever you do, don't expose your miners to the WAN, it's risky as is and would be even worse if you don't know what you are doing, the best basic setup is the one that danieleither described above, just a regular PC with a fresh OS, some trusted remote access application, and access your miners thought that PC, one thing I would add is a good monitoring tool like AwsomeMiner as that would keep your farm running problems free without you having to intervene, you just set a few rules and the application will handle your miners when something goes wrong, send you emails and notification about temps, hashrate and all the things you need, this way you won't have to log in every day to check.
|
|
|
|
Since you're first quote is in £, you're UK based?
Stompy, how is it possible that you have not stumbled upon danieleither's posts before? OP. what size are we talking about here? 5 miners, 50 or 500? the cost is different, the plan is different, and everything is different. Why should people do that for you?
That knowledge has value.
But isn't that what we do here? help people with what we know for free? I have been posting in this board for 6 years or so, and never charged anyone for the help and knowledge I share unless they want to pay for it themselves, obviously, if OP wants a full plan then that's a different subject, but if it's just a general question of how much will wiring cost for 50 gears, or what size of transformer would they need, I think many including yourself will be willing to help. |
|
|
|
Here are the logs: What do you guys think? To test I switched the CHAIN 0 and CHAIN 1 boards but the logs are still the same about CHAIN 0, so the error does not follow the board after being switched...
This means your hash boards are good, and there is an issue with the slot itself, check the busbar to see if it's loose, also I see your pool connection action weird in the log Feb 13 13:02:22 Antminer local0.warn cgminer[10878]: Pool 0 stratum+tcp://btc.f2pool.com:1314 not responding!
you have to fix this, use cksolo pool for testing, it's stable. |
|
|
|
|
Phil, i don't think the 6 cents/Kwh holds true anymore, i believe it has changed when the U.S miners took over, we saw deals of 2-3 cents for some of those large players.
Post halving, I think anything above 5 cents and or above 30w/th won't do good for a good while until the markets whale.
As for the pace, the last 24 hours had an average block of 10.6 mins, so we are indeed slowing down, but i doubt we go below 7% for this epoch, which still offset the price increase.
|
|
|
|
It was skot9000 himself:
It was an obvious joke, he meant you need to buy the whole miner from Bitmain which comes with 324 chips, chips don't need that much of protection. If you buy the whole miner for 5k you get the chip at 15$, I don't know how much the other stuff is but you could probably glue it together for another 30, rounding it to $70, so of course it won't compete in ROI with the S21 but a million of those could compete in profitability, no hobbyist is going to care about a 10w chip running on the desk.
Either way this would be the only way to true decentralization.
The cost per hash would be a lot higher anyway, you can only put so much in a single non-Bitmain miner, but would require the same controller and logic, I honestly see no point in these small miners, all of them will be used for lottery mining, and there is no such thing as "improve decentralization" with these expensive small miners, if you are not finding blocks -- you technically don't exist, hundreds of thousands of people need to operate these tiny miners to find a few blocks that don't even count. The best thing we can hope for in terms of decentralization is that another country besides the U.S starts mining BTC heavily and takes 20-30% of the hashrate, until that happens, it's all fudge. |
|
|
|
The plan is simple. Halving + Ichimoku Conversion line crosses the base line = 17 months to a new ATH  120K ATH Sep - 2025. Enjoy the ride. |
|
|
|
Can you buy BM 1368 chip?
according to Skot, since the chips are relatively new, they are only available in sets of 324... Zeusbtc has them with 10 MOQ, there is no price tag but I think it's in the 40$ range, in a few days the Chinese New Year is finished, if anyone is interested I can confirm the price. and not only that: You've got to protect those beauties in shipping by soldering them to a PCB and encasing them in heatsinks Who made the joke? |
|
|
|
|
I have to disagree with the two gentlemen above, this miner is without a shadow of a doubt GAW miner fury, it has scrypt ASICs on it, it mines LTC/DOGE at a very low speed, so ya pretty useless, also,also, it's missing a cooling fan on the top, you could probably spot the 4 holes for the screws that attach to the heatsink.
And true for not having a control board, you can connect it on a Raspberry Pi and dig for the right software to control the chips, but again, not worth it unless you are doing it for fun, oh and please, don't forget to install the fan if you plan on running this.
|
|
|
|
As NFW said, phase sequence doesn't matter here, however, phase failure does, if one of the phases fails the miner stops, also, you need to take a good measurement of your phase-to-phase voltage, it needs to be 342~418V for the miner to operate correctly, I don't know much about electricity complication in the U.S, but in EU and most of the world you know this by measuring the potential difference between each two live wires. The miner is connected by a 4x4 mm cable directly to the substation with a short cable 4x4 again to the circuit breaker. I don't think it's in the wiring, but the cause may be a voltage drop in the mains.
I'll take some measurements and see. 4mm2 is more than enough for the 10amps the S19 hydro uses, so it's unlikely that you are facing a voltage drop caused by the resistance in the wire, but it's likely a drop in your input voltage, it's would be near impossible to figure out if that indeed is the case given that your miner does run fine for a while, you would need to sit there with your tools measuring the power all day long hopping to see if that is the case. What I would do is get a 3-phase voltage monitor/control relay, something like this https://tense.com.tr/en/products/digital-adjustable-three-phase-over-and-under-voltage-control-relay-dgk-04/ You need it to be 3 phase (and has no RT / Reset function), so that when it trips -- it doesn't automatically turn back on. Set the minimum voltage to 360V and the max to 420v, if you come back home and the relay is shutdown it means there was indeed a voltage drop from the mains, obviously you don't want to connect this straight to the miner, just run 3 wires from the same breaker to it, later on if you want to connect it to the miner to protect it you are going to need a contactor (20A 3P) controlled by the phase protection relay which then controls the miner. |
|
|
|
Doubt it! S21 is already itself a giant pace in efficiency, I doubt that Bitmain has another ace hidden that it plans to release after the halving to screw everybody!
This unless they ar already able to do it with 3nm, but with the current geo-poli-eco madness I don't see them bein first in line at TSMC for that.
They can stuff more of the same chips in a single miner and end up with a more efficient and powerful gear, higher cost but it all depends on what the market is post halving. |
|
|
|
10% is still madness ?
It still is, we talking roughly 50EH or 60EH of new gear which I think is not possible either, we are half way into this epoch, I think we would still drop. |
|
|
|
Dont get me wrong, I believe OP's research has some flaws if it came to that conclusion, I just havent had time to read it.
It's on-chain data, and there are no flaws in the math, in reality, it's even worse today, looking at the last 7 days, blocks were found are distributed as follows: Foundry USA 30.3% AntPool 27.7% F2Pool 12.5% ViaBTC10.4% 4 pools mined >80% of all blocks Take this address as an example 38XnPvu9PmonFU9WouPXUjYbW91wa5MerL Antpool blocks pay to this address, it has received 139,652 BTC so far, the research paper considers this address as a single person/miner, which is why the interpretation is wrong, but the math is right. My issue with this specific argument is how long would it take word to spread of a pool acting maliciously? People treat hashrate distribution centralization as something new to BTC, but it's not, it has always been the case, it's always a few pools that control the majority of the hashrate, in fact, it has been worse at times, not too long ago I pulled the hashrate distribution history of 2018 or so, it was nearly 50% Bitmain, Antpool and the other pools they owned, even worse, the majority of mining gears physical location was in 2-3 Chinese provinces, so it's nothing new, these guys make a lot of money by playing honest, makes no sense to rekt billion of dollars of investment to double spend some transactions or attempt to fork the blockchain or anything stupid. |
|
|
|
After reading the OP, I concluded that there might be an issue in the study. It seems unlikely for these students from the London School of Economics to arrive at such a conclusion unless they lack a proper understanding of how mining pools operate. As a result, I spent/wasted half an hour delving into the research paper to uncover the nuances, and here it is. This figure documents the concentration capacity of miners based on Coinbase rewards that miners receive from pools. Each month, we sort active miners
by the amount of Coinbase rewards they receive and calculate the percentage of total mining capacity controlled by different quantiles of the miner distribution. Obviously, I do not doubt that their figures are accurate, and this conclusion The top 10% of miners control 90% and just 0.1% (about 50 miners) control close to 50% of mining capacity Could have been guessed by anyone who has been mining long enough, but where did they go wrong? These individuals seem to be entrenched in the early era of Bitcoin mining. In today's world, Coinbase transactions hold little significance in such research. To simplify, the vast majority of mining pools allocate Coinbase transactions to their own addresses and subsequently distribute rewards from there. Moreover, many mining pools operate on a Pay-Per-Share (PPS) model, meaning they pay out rewards before actually receiving them (or sometimes after). This results in payments originating from a different set of coins than those visible in the coinbase transactions. Given that almost 90% of all blocks are solved by approximately only 10 pools, it may seem as though these 10 miners control 90% of the blocks. Mining pools typically don't attempt to conceal their rewards, otherwise, they could assign a new address for each coinbase transaction. If this were the case, the entire interpretation of the study would shift drastically. Therefore, while the presented figures may be accurate, the interpretation is fundamentally flawed. Reading the paper further, I found another critical error in their approach which is linking the origin of exchanges to the location or nationality of miners. Their assumption, based on the use of a Chinese-owned exchange implying the miner is Chinese, or the use of a US or EU exchange indicating nationality, is flawed. Common sense dictates that this inference is far from accurate. Unless exchanges reveal miners' information to these researchers, which is highly unlikely, their methodology only exposes the identity of mining pools rather than individual miners. In essence, this research may suffice for academic purposes in obtaining a master's or bachelor's degree, using it for anything else -- is a mistake. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
