اشكرك على المبادرة الرائعة اخي, ولكن لشخص مثلي لايفهم شي عن كرة القدم ولا اتابعها ولست مهتم بها من الاساس اجد ان التسجيل في موقع البرميرليق, وتكوين فريق امر معتب وصعب خصوصا اني لا اعرف حتى من هم اللاعبين الجيدين (ربما اعرف اسماء بعض اللاعبين العرب, او المهاجمين المشهورين على الاغلب لا اعرف اسم اي حارس او لاعب دفاع  ) لذلك لايمكنني المشاركة في هده المسابقة

اتمنى ان تركز المسابقات في المستقبل على مايخص الكريبتو وتحديدا البتكوين لكي تكون الفائدة اكبر ولا تقتصر على المتعة والفوز فقط. اتمنى مشاركة ممتعة للجميع.

ماهي الميزة التي لديك؟ هل تقصد نقطة الجدارة؟ لايمكنك نقلها لسببين:

1- يجب ان تتحصل على نقطتين لكي تتمكن من ارسال نقطة
2- ارسال نقاط الجدارة لنفسك عبر حسابات مختلفة مخالف لشروط المنتدى ويعرضك للمشاكل.

فقط قم بفتح حساب جديد في حال انك لا تمتلك الوصول للايميل, ولا تقم باستخدام هدا الحساب مجددا, اما بالنسبة لنقاط الجدارة كل ماعليك هوا المشاركة الفاعلة في المنتدى وسوف تتحصل على عشرات بل الاف النقاط في حال استمرارك بالنشر المفيد.

What contracts? this is probably only the U.S, most countries have fixed electricity prices, where I live, they need a legislative decision to change the power rate, but anyway, if you are able to get a 3-cent contract in the U.S which is below the world average, chances are even if for whatever reason they raise it to 4 cents the next year, you are still going to be below average.

The price of BTC is the least relevant aspect here, bull markets don't last for more than a few months, then the price stabilizes, difficulty catches up, and the final sayings goes to your power rate, during the main phase everything and everyone can be profitable, but that doesn't mean they will hit ROI or continue to mine the next month.

It's also important to stress the fact that the exact cost per KwH doesn't matter, what matters is, what tier are you on compared to the rest of the miners, 5 years from now, the average power rate could be 10 cents, and thus anyone with 9 cents will be doing great, if the average drops to 3 cents, then 3 cents won't save you, so the exact number doesn't mean much, but as long as you are paying below average -- you are more likely to be profitable.

Intel tried to compete against Samsung and TSMC, that was a challenge on a different level, the new K10PRO miner probably uses the same chips used by Bitmain but with a modified design, it's not so difficult to do that, you just add more chips, lower the clock and you get more hashrate with lower power consumption, the real challenge here would be the price point.

Bitmain, MicroBT, and all these guys can design and make a miner that does a lot more hashrate than the K10PRO with the same or even lower power consumption, but they always want to balance these four aspects

1- Cost
2- Power
3- Hashrate
4- Quality

Apparently, the ratio is different for every company and every individual miner, we know the power and hashrate of  K10PRO we just don't know the cost and quality, for all we know, it could be a lot more expensive than the other models in the market and thus makes no sense to buy it, more info will be revealed as time goes by, as miners this competition is good for us to a certain degree.

Here is a good review/breakdown video of the K10PRO by my friend Thecoindad

It's not fake, it's real (I confirmed it from various trusted sources I know) it uses a 5.4kw PSU it's based on a high-density design using 1,092 chips inside this little miner, all running at low frequency to achieve these amazing results you see in the video, of course, this will have a huge impact on the cost, but ya, this is one pretty little piece.

Oh, and it's Chinese-made as well, and these guys are to something in terms of the design and software, it runs on 200-277v with a promised ambient temp of as high as 50c, I highly doubt small users will get their hands on these things, probably the big boys will buy them all, but let's wait and see.

What kind of attack can one perform to own 10 trillion worth of BTC? The only feasible attack would be double-spend, to perform a 3 billion $ attack you would really want to reverse a transaction/ series of transactions that is worth much more, a double spend attack is not feasible now or with a market cap of 10 trillion as long as:

1- The attack is very expensive.
2- The profit of playing fair is high.


A government carrying out different attacks just to damage bitcoin is something different, you could argue that if needs be, it won't matter much how much hashrate is securing the network, if they label mining bitcoin as a crime worldwide, 90% of miners will shutdown and then it will cost them little to nothing to attack it.

Which one is more important remains the question, which feature is more valuable is also a matter of question, is it the 21M cap, or the free storage of coins, hard to tell which one to sacrifice when the time comes.

The same argument could be made when developers start injecting more coins that what you thought possible, we can reuse every argument against the two different methods, they both are "bad results" we just have to debate which is worse.    



Work as in (work to solve the problem of mining incentives) i am aware of merged mining, got a dozen of those useless coins, all fees extracted by all the different merged coins throughout history are not close enough to being worth half the block reward, they are essentially useless to bitcoin, and I don't see how that would change.

Would be pretty hard to find someone on those freelancer websites, coding a mining pool is a very "specific" field, it's not enough to be an excellent programmer to write a whole mining pool up and running in a reasonable time, it is doable, but the research time alone is going to cost OP way too much, it would be better to post this in the mining section and/or on mining telegram groups.

People like CK and Kano have some solid pools running, with the majority of the pool code being open-source (but outdated), it would be a lot better and probably cheaper to just hire people like them because that

1- You get a mining pool made by someone else who has a mining pool running for years (nearly zero bugs in production)
2- They have the code ready, with just a few modifications you could have it up and running (way less time than being done by someone else with no background).

Do they run custom firmware? or did Bitmain change the way they operate when internet goes down, the stock firmware for the S7 and all the way to S17 took a good measure against this issue, even if your internet goes down, the miner would still generate heat, many folks didn't like that and thus custom firmware like Vnish decided to ditch it, so to save money on the power bill, they made it so that the miner goes to sleep mood when internet is down, while keeping the fan spinning, of course, that was a very stupid move on their behalf because when the weather is super humid and you get fans spinning lowering the miner's temp to dew point, your miners takes a shower and rests in peace.

I don't own a S19 pro, but my guess, Bitmain started doing the same stupid shit, mining at a humid place with fans spinning and no heat generated = kaboom.



Do you mean Zeus? I don't think Zeus has any repair center outside of China, those are just listed by them no sponsored or guaranteed by ZeusBTC, they probably did a bit of due diligence before listing all those repair centers, but that doesn't mean much, my info could be outdated but a few years ago, I was told by the owner of ZeusBTC himself that they were not affiliated with those repair centers, maybe things changed so do reach out to them.

As for other repair centers charging more than Bitmain, that's pretty normal, they are probably faster than Bitmain, sending your gear to Bitmain for repair is rather risky, I heard terrible stories of people waiting for ages to get their miner's back.


If the miner is under warranty Bitmain wants you to always send the whole miner unless you manage to convince them otherwise, I did that once after a long debate with them, and ended up sending them only the bad control board, if it's just for repair that isn't under warranty I see no reason why they would force you to send the whole miner, unless they suspect the issue to be something else like PSU or CB.

Some people don't want 14th, a noise box and all that, they just want a chance to solo mine a block, there is no way you are getting 40 db on an S9 running at 14th unless it's freezing cold and fans are sitting near idle at 20-25%, a very difficult condition to be met giving that the noisebox will increase temps regardless, 50-55 db is more like it, ya if you put it in a different room it could work, but again, not everyone has a spare room.

Also, while an S19 gives you 7 times the hashrate (2 vs 14), it also uses 7 times more power, someone who pays 10 cents per kWh will only have to pay  6$ a month while still getting a chance to hit a block, vs paying $90 a month running an s9, in just a few months the power bill alone will surpass the cost of the USB miner, you see we can keep going back and forth of how something is better than the other, but we will get nowhere because as I said, everything has it's own use case.

We don't know much gold is left to be mined even on the very planet we live on, let alone other planets, limited and capped are two different things, precious metals are limited by what can be found, and cash is also limited by how much ink and papers we can produce, everything we know of is limited, nothing is created completely out of thin air, so those metals being limited don't make them equal to Bitcoin in that regards, BTC inherently is not limited by physics or code either, it's limited, finite and caped by consensus.


Only about 10% of Gold is used in industry, the rest is all just stored for its scarcity, in fact, long before people discovered how to use gold in any industry, they used it as a  medium of exchange, for daily payments, that evolved to being store of value against government currencies, if we discover something else to use instead of gold in all industries it's being used in, it wouldn't have any major impact on the value of Gold.

Yes, finding a use for something that is already a good store of value is going to increase it's value, but that doesn't mean it has to have a use to actually have value.


Which is the same. If you were to compare it by the usage of purchasing power parity, you would arrive at the same conclusion. The amount of Bitcoin that you have in the future is less than what you have now. Your purchasing power in terms of Bitcoin has decreased, which has the same effect as an inflation.


Nobody can prove that there are any lost coins, can you? if you can't prove it, you can't count it, burned coins are not lost coins, and burned coins won't be subject to fees because they are not there so not sure why you brought that up as an argument, and again, no matter how many "lost" coins are there, introducing new supply will result in more coins in circulation, even if we were to believe that there are 2M "lost" coins, and the actual supply is only 19M and not 21M, it's only a matter of time before we re-generate those 2M coins and above.



That article is B.S to be honest, it's based on a lot of assumption that you can't control or predict accurately.


Oh really, how? it's fine if you want to argue for the sake of conversation that many people lose their coins, but since you can't know how many coins are or will be lost, you can't even prove they are lost, then the whole argument is flawed.

We did go off-topic a little, but speaking of "lost coins" which OP wants to re-use, I want someone to prove that there is indeed something called lost coins, they don't have to be someone else's coins, they could be your coins, what would be solid evidence that you indeed lost said coins? it's possible to prove that you have something, but it's impossible to prove that you don't.

All coins that are technically spendable are existing coins and are NOT lost, I can't take seriously someone telling a story of how his grandmother threw away his laptop that had 100k BTC, or that Satoshi is dead and can longer access his coins, I could make the same claim that I lost access to my coins, I just can't prove it.

Yes, but precious metals are ever increasing in supply, the % of the precious metal you own is always going to decrease, this is why BTC is superior to gold for an example, because we assume that the max supply will be capped by 21M, and ya of course, no fees on storage so your 1 BTC is always 1 BTC and thus the % you own is always constant (unless you decide to increase it or reduce it yourself).

But that is the perfect scenario when we have enough transactions to maintain the network, if we don't, there is no perfect way out of it, you either put fees on storage or lift the cap and make bitcoin's supply infinite, assuming the other other ideas like merged mining don't work, which would be very likely anyway.


Ok this is going to be a different topic, but not sure why you think BTC was not designed to be a store of value, the P2P ecash system doesn't mean you have to spend it every day, it simply means that you can own it, use it, and send it without the approval of a centralized authority, wether you use it to buy coffee or store it for 50 years it makes no difference to the main concept of BTC.

In reality and since "good money drives bad money out of circulation", the less people spend BTC the more value they think it has, ultimately, we get to a point where nobody would want to spend dear BTC unless they are forced to, there is nothing wrong with that IMO. 



That is not very accurate, your store of value will not be worth "less", you would have "less" of it, and there is no inflation in the proposed scheme, inflation is present in the other method which is injecting new BTC into the circulation.


We have no proof that there are any "lost" coins, we don't know how much there is, and we don't even know if such a thing exists, to begin with, aside from the small incidents where people lost their PK (which they may recover at some point). The advertised "lost coins" in the media could be unrealistic, does anyone know for sure that Satoshi's coins won't be spent at some point in the future? we don't.

Besides, when you start creating more supply, it's only a matter of time before you create more coins into the system than those "lost coins".


wealth will be redistributed whether it's via fee/tax or creating a new supply, if all you have and can afford to buy is 1 BTC, your wealth will decrease with every block that is mined.

There are many forms of taxation, when you increase the supply by 1% you are simply taxing everyone who owns the currency by 1%, taxation done by the government is bad because they tax you twice when you make money they tax you a good %, and then their ever printing is also another form of taxation, but BTC taxation will be done only once, either by increasing the supply as you said you prefer or by paying fees/tax to store your coins, looking at the numbers it's exactly the same.

Regardless of the mechanism or the wording we put around it increasing the supply and extracting fee is the same in terms of simple math, my argument is that the psychological/economical effect of lifting the 21M cap is worse than charging a storage a tiny fee, but of course, I could be wrong.

With that in mind, as I said again, given my age, I will most certainly not be there to witness all the potential future arguments in regard to this subject when and if it happens, I hope that transaction fees will be good enough to maintain a good level of security so that Bitcoin community won't have to have these arguments and debates, it's an interesting discussion, to say the least.
 

I have to disagree, the main marketing point for BTC economy is it's capped 21M, nobody knows what is the current supply unless they google it, and nobody even cares about it, the same concept of the 21M max supply has been in play since bitcoin's inception, I have yet to see anyone who invests into bitcoin because it's current supply is 19.x M.


I don't think that would make BTC unsuccessful, in fact, I do think that the number of transactions is going to enter a downtrend at some point, despite BTC gaining more popularity and users, BTC seems to work better as a store of value than a medium of exchange for daily usage, the more value it gains (vs other goods) the less it will be spent, I think in 5-10 years transactions will be close to flat, everyone will be buying it to store, so the average user who makes 1 transaction a day will likely only have 1 transaction a year or so.



Ya pretty much as what ranochigo said, it depends on how you want to interpret it, you guys are looking at it from a personal perspective and the effect on the user individually, I look at it as a global effect on the whole currency, while the numbers are the same, the effect is likely to be a lot of different, especially if the fee is very low, say it's 0.1% a year on all coins, by doing this you maintain one of the most valuable aspects of BTC economics which is the finite supply, going beyond 21M even with 0.1% coins a year will take away the concept, so the difference between circulation 0.1% and injecting new 0.1% supply is pretty large, its the difference between finite and infinite.

When miners take 0.1% of your coins it doesn't make Bitcoin less scarce, the scarcity of bitcoin remains the same regardless of the fact that you now own a little less of it, when you create 0.1% out of thin air and give it to the miners, every block that passes affects the scarcity of the coin, the effect this could have on it's value is probably going to be more than fee which you could otherwise pay to the miners just to keep that 21M cap.

Bitcoin will have endless emission regadless, we do not know what the value of transaction fees is going to be, it could be greater than the current block rewards and thus more hashrate could be running at a profit then.

.

If the rewards from fees are not large enough to keep enough hashrate securing the network, then everyone who owns only Bitcoin will get 100% poorer.

The outcome is far from being the same, one main point of strength of Bitcoin is its finite supply, raising the supply past 21M even if it was 1 coin a year will make the supply infinite just like all the fiat currencies,  the economical difference between that and circulating a tiny portion of BTC from hodlers to miners is entirely different.

By rasing the supply Bitcoin is guaranteed to lose value, while with extracting fees you just distribute a small portion of that values between different addresses.

Ya I personally wouldn't want to pay fees just to store my coins, but it is also naive to expect that my coins will be secured enough when nobody has any motive to point hashrate at the network,  when a few dozen double spending attacks are done cheaply without an issue, everyone will be glad to pay a small fee.

The alternative to that would be random people mining at a loss just to maintain the network, that could work but difficult to guarantee.

Now all of that is probably not going to be needed given that in 60-80 years time you would expect the transactions will be a lot higher in number as well as value, but you can never be too sure.

The first thing I would want to eliminate would be the possibility of a browser issue, use a different browser to access the status page to check if there is any difference, you could also use a free monitoring software like AwesomMiner just to check the status of the miner with that issue, now once you confirm that it's indeed an internal issue, here is a list of the things you can do.

- Take out the control board and put it in a different miner to see if it acts any differently.
- Flash an older firmware version (probably not accessible unless you contact Inno's support.

If all fails, then chances are your control board is out and you need to replace it.

What is more important is to find out why would all your miners restart, there could be an underlying issue causing them to do so, and what happened to this miner could happen to the rest, have you figured out the reason for the mass reboot?

This proposal won't fix the problem, it would just delay it, also, whatever issue you are describing is probably going to happen way before 2140, in 50-60 years at best the block rewards will be next to nothing, and then the incentives to mine BTC would be different.

As it stands today, all mining is done for the incentive of profit, but at that point in time, if transaction fees are too low to keep a reasonable hashrate on the network, a new incentive will be created, something like mining to "protect your assets".

It could also be something like "blockchain fee" that everyone who owns BTC and wants to secure it, must pay a small fee to protect the blockchain and thus protect their own assets/transactions.

The way that would work is unknown, it could be as simple as people mining at a loss to maintain the network or a protocol change that takes a certain % of all bitcoins in circulation and put it back to block rewards.

An example:

21,000,000 coins in circulation, let's say the target is to keep block rewards at 3 BTC per block, it means we need 157,680 BTC  a year, we could charge 0.75% "blockchain fees" per year and keep the network as secure as it will be next year when the block reward drops to  3.125 BTC.

In fact, depending on the fiat value (or whatever the representation of the electricity bill then) we could get away with 1 BTC block reward or even less, and still keep a high enough hashrate that makes the network more secure than it is today or even better, so that suggested fee could drop to below 0.25% a year or so, and it could be adjustable based on some variables.

Notice the above proposal does not increase the supply of BTC, it treats all BTC the same regardless of it's history/owners, and it does maintain a very good incentive to mining.

I am not sure if anyone has ever thought of such a proposal before, but it shouldn't be so uncommon, there could be many other proposals on how to fix that potential issue should BTC stay treated as a store of value and rarely transacted, people will find a way to solve it (we are likely not going to be there to witness it).

We have gone up quite a bit the last 2 days, the pace is approaching 100%


I agree with phill regarding the heatwave/s, the only logical reason as to why difficulty has stopped increasing as much for the past couple of weeks is due to the hot summer in major mining cities like Texas, if this continues, then august should be a flat month in terms of difficulty, as we approach September we should start climbing again, the usually 2-3% per epoch.

If those S19j pros are brand new, then they are pretty cheap compared to the market price, they sell for over 14$/th in the U.S depending on the quantity, if they are used, then they are right about the average.

The S19s (Non-Pro) are way cheaper, I have them for sale brand new in HK for 8.9$ /th + around 200$ for DDP shipping to the U.S, so you are looking at  930$-965$ in the U.S for the S19 82th and 86th version, for 10 PCs and above the prices would be lower (maybe 20-50$ per PC ) for 50+ qty you could get up to 100-120$ discount, sometimes, even more, quantity makes a huge difference.

Price list update 31/07/2023

Whatsminer:

Stock:

M30S++110TH  12.2U/TH currently out of stock
M50 118TH 29W    14.2U/TH
M50S 128TH 26W 19.1U/TH
M33s++ 225TH 31w 15U/TH currently out of stock
M53s++  280th-320TH 24W   24.2U/TH

Aug pre-order MOQ 30 pcs

M50S++  160th 21W  25.3U/TH

---

Antminer:

S19       82-86th          $8.9/T
S19pro 96-104th           $13.9/T
L7 9050m-9500m    $4450-$4980

** If your wanted quantity is 10 pcs or above, PM for discounted prices.

I have a whole dedicate thread regarding the temperature sensor on the 17 series, you fill find a lot of useful info in there.

But to give you a bit of a summary:

- The part number of the temp sensor is TMP451AIDQFR.
- It's most often a chip/solder issue on one of the chips rather than a temp sensor.
- if all temp sensors on all boards are acting weird then it's most likely a bad PSU.

I had a long 'terrible' experience with those gears, and as weird as it sounds, 90% of the issues are caused by bad contact between the chip and PCB, the medium temperature solder used on those gears is terrible, the robots/human beings who soldered the chips did a terrible job, you are guaranteed to fix the majority of the problems (regardless whether it shows a bad temp sensor or missing chip) by simply reflowing all the chips and making sure there are no solder balls built up on any of the chips and shorting the chip.

If you confirm that it's indeed an issue of bad temp senrsor/s, refer to my topic to know their exact locations, also here is a short video showing a replacement of those temp sensors