Please someone tell me I'm wrong, but i am a huge supporter or bitcoin and the concept of decentralization and have been doing some research about mining because i want to support this idea but i have not found one method that will yield in positive profits for new miners entering the market right now.
Even the S7 miner ($800 - $1200 USD) will generate 0.5%-0.75% daily ROI yield and this is excluding electricity cost, add the increasing Difficulty to the equation and the fact that Block reward is halving in the summer it is now increasing exponentially in negative profits.
Cloud mining is pretty much the same thing too Maintenance cost of these websites are ridiculous (Hashnest, CEX.io, etc) and if you come across something that brings up your hopes it ends up being a ponzi
am i missing something here, how are miners making there money?
I am happy we have a newbie who actually does some research and not just buys a miner and starts complaining afters. Cloud mining is not profitable. Mining can be profitable if you can get bulk prices and have a very low energy cost. For the rest of us (home miners) it's not profitable. Good Thread. Im also new bee in mining and try some maths. Actual, hashrate is about 2000 peta, correct? A S7 does about 5 tera so entire hashpower could be achieved by about 400 000 S7 correct? |
|
|
|
Yes, I also think the Homestead release news has been "priced in" to some extent. I still think we may see some slight upwards movement and stabilization though as a result. This news shows milestones are being met and development continues, so that helps to dispense with some of the FUD and instills a bit more confidence into the investors minds.
Yes and also most important news actually was this: http://www.coindesk.com/microsoft-ethereum-startup-blockchain/Look at the time posted 14:30 and look at the exchange graph it goes ham a hour after. This means any good news about ethereum will bring more people in. Especially if it has a big name to it like Microsoft in the Title. Of course the good news, will positively influence the distribution of coins and its growth. But what happens now? (Not really what this jumping out of the news from Microsoft Azure) As for me, now it goes aktiveny Pump, followed by a sharp jump downwards. On the one hand it's good, but for long-term growth, it is just self-indulgence. Yes. Everbody needs to do proper risk analysis first. To remind that very high frequently is much more better than cheerlead others to lose money. |
|
|
|
ETH price going up but everyone fear to buy more ETH
My guess would be it will get pumped up to try and break the 0.02 mark and then hope that more people start buying with confidence and then the big sells will appear. Im quite happy just watching from the sideline. If you'd consider it is pumpend by MSFT and Gates it just goes to da moon non stop.... |
|
|
|
Sorry, a bit more precise: Is casper the base for the Smart contract executor?
No... smart contracts are already a reality without Casper. https://etherchain.org/contractsNot a Proof. Maybe the core that executes now or in future is called different, but still it needs that casper. |
|
|
|
Sorry, a bit more precise: Is casper the base for the Smart contract executor? |
|
|
|
Thanks. Could anybody help me out in differntiating? Casper is the thing that makes ETH different and let it be a smart contract Running blockchain? Or W/o casper And switch to PoS ETH = NXT ? |
|
|
|
The mempool was nearly empty at around 1-1.5 two days ago.
No it wasn't-- maybe on that site, but only due to it filtering things. Because of ongoing low level spam attacks any long running 0.12 node has had a 300MB mempool (which is the limit) for months now. There are about 800 MBytes of unconfirmed valid transactions that I'm aware of... None of this is especially interesting: one should always assume that the number of transactions at a fee of 0 is effectively infinite. The spammers moved to paying more than 1e-8 BTC per byte; which is still much lower than most ordinary transactions; but high enough to move the needle on tradeblock... this lets people spin a bunch of FUD. Meanwhile for most people transactions continue to function like normal: a total non-event. It's NOT a total non-Event: Proof: You posted.  |
|
|
|
Overall: Ripple was before Ethereum when it comes to the top down approach. I don't think banks are interested in their own blockchain just as they are not interested in their own distro of Linux, or Oracle, or any other piece of software.
What they are looking for imho is interoperability with other banks and a ledger to support it (like SWIFT). This requirement might make them build something secure and private on top of ETH, but I don't believe that ANY bank wants it's own blockchain (unless it's a totally private blockchain akin to an intranet).
For one thing, trust me, they do not have the expertise to handle the tech.... yet.
Ripple's Interledger Protocol will connect the private networks. Good thread to read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343597.0You are quite right, ripple was first top down project, but with just assets and no smart contracts . |
|
|
|
I don't think banks are interested in their own blockchain just as they are not interested in their own distro of Linux, or Oracle, or any other piece of software.
What they are looking for imho is interoperability with other banks and a ledger to support it (like SWIFT). This requirement might make them build something secure and private on top of ETH, but I don't believe that ANY bank wants it's own blockchain (unless it's a totally private blockchain akin to an intranet).
For one thing, trust me, they do not have the expertise to handle the tech.... yet.
If ETH might work, or anything else like Hyperleder,... then R3 with Mike Hearn will care about the tech, that will be some intranet thingy like SWIFT is as well. |
|
|
|
This whole thread is a bullish indicator for the price of ethereum.
... Like sell on good news. |
|
|
|
|
Yes. BTC defenitely needs more of that also to gain positive headlines !
|
|
|
|
I still don't understand what actual use cases can ETH bring to the table. Why would anyone use Ethereum if sidechains bring stuff like Rootstock and prove it to work? Why would anyone use ETH blockchain then which is smaller, has less nodes, has existed for less time... I don't see any benefits.
Do you have evidence of a functional smart contract running blockchain? Beeing Turing complete, scalable and decentral + trustless? |
|
|
|
If you were a bank planning smart contracts why the hell would you expose your fuel to a bunch of miners and scumbag traders on alt exchanges? You'd remove all of that from the equation. I guess that's the whole point of R3.
R3 is watching ETH and playing with that. But better prove it by bigger community? |
|
|
|
There's no need to panic. 1.2M ETH is like 1.5% of the available supply. It's less than a day's wpporth of ETH trading. Besides, how can we know this is not just Poloniex themselves moving around their reserves? The owner of the 1.2M ETH is not that stupid enough to dump everything in one shot and destroy the market. All he have to do is to sell by batches and he can also manipulate the market to buy cheaper if he wants. The whale won't dump when Homestead is not released yet. He must have some insider knowledge, a good reason. Such an action is not unplanned. He could do many things from hard dump to smart order routing / ice bergs or just simple market making to reduce volatility and spreads.... |
|
|
|
Big banks (an other big corps like GE, car industry) might use the ETH project just for sake of getting a cheap live proof if smart contracts (on PoS) might work or not. How other they could gather any proper information on if this might work at all? So they just 'fuel' this a bit for a given time and some limited money in the open source world, also find some little nice pseudo use cases like slockit, identity, ?.. And later, they will just fork / copy the code for some closed intra company use. This stuff here again proofs, the big ones will not go on public ledgers in near time: http://www.coindesk.com/imagining-the-role-of-blockchain-in-financial-services/So is the initial public ICO just a faik and now we see some big coprs pumping for a time, because initially this was planned top down? Big live experiment? |
|
|
|
|
Should rather be best money or commodity. Currency can have no value like Zimbabwe $.
|
|
|
|
I would say that is the clear of the overhang. So the price will rise after the 1.2 milllion of Etherum is absorbed. Wow. What a centralisation all over: Bag holders, mining and exchange. Big risk! |
|
|
|
I'm with spartacusrex. The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users. Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure.
Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low. So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.
I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late. My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford. Why multi-billion and not multi-million? These chains are already valued in the multi-millions. Also, some of these attacks are free or nearly free, so why not just go ahead and do it (unless of course it can't be done, which I suspect). Again, until someone demonstrates that these attacks are possible and can cause significant f, then POS is deemed sufficiently secure. Hope you did not apply for some op-risk position at any reasonable company with that sentence above. Still waiting................. I'll be waiting to everybody playing with own money or otherones just read & understand page 9 of http://www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/WhitePapers/Beyond_the_Horizon_White_Paper_Systemic_Risk.ashxand my strongest wish is that those parts there will be adjusted esp for investments into crypto ccys ASAP. Hereunder should go as well all elaborated stuff from this thread and much more,otherwise I fear that crypto ccy will never reach next level of investments and stay nichy by burning small people money that just have NO clue about proper risk management. |
|
|
|
I'm with spartacusrex. The ultimate test is for someone to pull of one of these (theoretical) attacks and catastrophically and irreparably damage the network in some way, or at least prove that one of the attacks can be used to consistently and successfully attack the network and/or individual users. Until this test is completed, I'm going to assume that POS and other variations (DPOS) is sufficiently secure.
Also, it would be in everyone's best interest if POS was broken sooner rather than later while valuations are low. So please, if you have a guaranteed attack, go ahead and do it and prove POS useless.
I'd expect this happening only if there IS already multi billion business available to attack.... as usually always too late. My hope is - and thanks to TPTB - that here is platform to elaborate on this issues in public, cause that's the risk managament we all can afford. Why multi-billion and not multi-million? These chains are already valued in the multi-millions. Also, some of these attacks are free or nearly free, so why not just go ahead and do it (unless of course it can't be done, which I suspect). Again, until someone demonstrates that these attacks are possible and can cause significant damage, then POS is deemed sufficiently secure. Hope you did not apply for some op-risk position at any reasonable company with that sentence above. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
