In marketing terms those metric prefixes sound very small and evoke the suggestion of dealing with tiny little fractions. Though I'm not much of a salesman, but arriving home and telling your girlfriend or wife, or both, you bought 100 milliBitcoins for $80 would not impress her and make her think of you making a great investment. The story turns 180 degrees when you tell her that you bought 1000 rootBitcoins for $80, doesn't it? Additionally there is no need to name each increase by the factor ten/hundred/thousand; nobody writes 1 gigaDollar or 1 megaDollar or 1 kiloDollar or 1 deciDollar.
Yeah, I agree that those metric prefixes don't really "sound right" when talking about money. I was an electronics tech for twenty years, so I'm accustomed to the metric prefix terminology when discussing millivolts, kilowatts, picofarads, etc., but it just doesn't seem quite right when talking about money. I'm not sold on "rootBitcoins", but I'll go along with whatever term most in the community go with. I don't have an adamant opinion on it, just tossing some ideas around. As you know, bitcoins are very different than fiat currencies and there is less of a need for metric prefixes when discussing them because bankers just create more of them before they have a chance to appreciate in value ("deflation" they like to call it). If the dollar supply had been controlled over the last hundred years the same way the bitcoin supply will be controlled for the next hundred years, they would have been forced to redefine the currency units (similar to a 10-for-1 stock split) or something along those lines. So, as thms said (or rather discovered  ), the base unit is actually a Satoshi and not a BTC (in the code.) I've thought often of the stock split idea before. That sounds like the easiest solution. At this point, I think following the dollar (at least until it pops and gets out of hand inflation wise), might be worth considering. How about an adjustment during key levels when price stabilization takes place (like around now)? We could do a 1000 for 1 split and put 1 BTC close in value to a dollar. Of course, what this would do is open the floodgates for new buyers, guaranteed.But, does it hurt us in another sense? Notice that America is like one of the only countries not on the Metric system yet?... |
|
|
|
Do you remember how BTC spiked around the time of cutting the reward in half? I was just wondering the same after reading that we are getting the reward cut in half as well in a few days. So, that means fewer coins to mine. You will have to buy. The next few weeks will be interesting. Will the QRK network's Hashrate continue going down or will it stabilize due to a price rise? A few factors... IAS |
|
|
|
Aloha!
Is it possible mining quark with minerd on 6/8 cores on my gpu mining rig at the same time i´m mining doge e.g with my gpus?
or will it reduce my overall hashrate ?
I´ve read that it is important to let 1 core idle for cgminer. is that enough ? oder should I let more cores idled?
thank you for your help
push Yes it is. I use the CPU-Limit command on linux as a way of giving Quark a percentage of my 8 cores (AMD FX 8350). I've given QRK 50% of the CPU and DOGE 50%. But, it seemed I only need to run the command for one of them and the other, of course, took the remaining (equal) amount. There is also a command to give the miner so many cores. I know I've ran that as well when starting DOGE, just as an experiment. You will have to look that up. As far as giving CGMINER a core, I haven't, and everything is fine. Right now I'm running my 8 cores full on QRK. I needed an aftermarket CPU cooler though (True Spirit 120M) to cool it 20 degrees! (Just air) IAS |
|
|
|
Quark is dead, please don't buy it anymore.
That's funny. Come at my investments bra, they're all solid! Quark is the 4th most active reddit coin - behind BTC, LTC, and Doge Quark has a foundation constantly funding infrastructure projects - http://www.quarkfoundation.cc/projects/Quark has an active dev who can be reached at any time And it has a good marketing push with many videos/infographics/media connections (Still, Keiser) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb8si58DW9Yhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe4Myh5Rw9Mhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeP7REZXLjU@Galbros - Certainly no instamine scam. Originally, people were saying it was premined but this was completely disproven by the Announcement thread on here (posted the same day as the genesis block was mined). Then came the instamine 'scam' concept which is interesting and harder to disprove. But, if you are seriously considering a large investment, I can show you why it is unlikely that Quark's mining process led to an unfair distribution. If you look at Cryptsy's volume from launch until it shot up in price, miners were dumping the coin continuously for near nothing into the hands of many investors. Now, it is still a cheap coin. I'm not saying make it your sole investment as many others do, but it should be a third of your portfolio. I often recommend BTC 40%, LTC 30%, and QRK 30%. BTC and LTC are somewhat safe, while QRK is a high reward/high risk coin that I believe in! Quark kinda was a instamine. I mined quark 3 weeks after launch and i got a shit ton. I also SOLD 4/5 of it 5 weeks before the big quark boom. FML That is the thing - it is a great experiment in an alternative distribution model. I got in at just above todays prices, actually like 30% but I like the idea of something different here with distribution. Hopefully more people sell at these levels then we can start a good ascent and test that network (considering the mining power is now down a bit.) |
|
|
|
|
No offense, but your first post is an offline wallet? Really dangerous in many ways.
Your code needs to be secure, verifiable, checked, signed, and on and on.
IAS
|
|
|
|
|
1 - Litecoin - strong network, growing community, fast & secure, growing network
2 - Quark - interesting change in mining and distribution, low cost to maintain price, 6 algorithms for more security, More asic resistant, fast & secure, community growing, interesting how much it gets attacked
3 - Peercoin - POS, strong network
4 - Namecoin - love the DNS functionality, strong network
...
|
|
|
|
On the day when this 5MH/s card could come to my house (3Q  ), R9 290X price can be 1,5-2 times lower than now. I'm not sure is it a great deal Besides.... it's useless for the other purposes How much energy and how many cards would you require to get 5Mh/s from R9 290 cards? Answer - At roughly 870Kh/s it would take you 6 cards (roughly 350X6= 2100 bucks). 6 cards would use 1800 watts of energy. So, by waiting as energy just makes it cost prohibitive where I (and many others are to Scrypt mine) I can get 5Mh/s for 1350 bucks and use only 80 or so watts of energy. Of note, though I doubt it continues, is the LTC difficulty is falling hard. Due to Doge or? Now, I understand that the above is not true for everyone but it is true for many. Also, there is no way I could either handle 1800 additional watts on my current breaker nor handle the cost of upgrading each of those NOISY cards with upgraded cooling (as they are just no available, though I got lucky and found 1.) IAS |
|
|
|
1U cases usually have smaller fans, which are much noisier. 1U cases require special PSU rather than plain ATA PSU, don't they?
I think it would be better to use 2U or 3U case, to have quieter device, with standard PSU,
and with margins (more space), which would allow to enlarge size or number of modules if their hashing speed is worse than expected.
Using "margins on margins" worked well for KnCMiner. The others provided less margins and it was often the source of their problems.
You brought up something I had been wondering about: What is the noise level of the 1U units? Really, an answer in Db would be great. (A range for now). I would imagine most people will be running these out of their homes and noise will be a HUGE factor. I just bought a LTC mining computer with an AMD R9-290 GPU in it - NOISY (via terrible design). I had to use an aftermarket fan/cooler to bring the level down (a lot). Warranty is gone when you do that. So, while things are still being finalized - Alpha Tech - Can you take noise into consideration? Most appreciated. Its about sharing I just built a 4u rig with 2 x r9 290, having 2 x 80mm fans and 2 x 120mm fans, It's circa 60db. I would imagine it would not be too dissimilar. Rig number 2 under way with 3 of the r9 290's in.... With due respect you picked the WORST card to base your example on, as I clearly stated above. The R9 290 is the Absolutely WORST designed card when it comes to noise level as well as poorly designed when it comes to cooling. There is a reason my altered card is BOTH quiet and cool (13-20 degrees cooler than stock!!!). The R9 290 is made to run at 95 degrees (or should I say "withstand") as they apparently used the cheapest design possible - which is why they "made it to run" at 95°. Alpha Tech can EASILY build a fairly quiet rig. The key is in the fans combined with an optimal cooling and air flow design. It is not rocket science and the work has basically already been done. (Just like the aftermarket R9 290 cooling system.) In this day and age, there is NO reason to have a rig running above 20-25Db's, depending on the level of cooling needed (and perhaps if the overclocking is huge). If we start making these rigs impossible to keep in houses, we do mining a great disservice imo. IAS Worse case scenario, best case scenario. I purely provided an answer to the question, it's neither right, nor wrong, it's based on my current setup and thats all. I'm running it in a rack in a data centre, so it's neither here nor there when it comes to how much noise it makes for me. Whilst there is every possibility to make a quiet rig, I still have to wear ear plugs in my server room. Noise, size, neither are a deciding factor in my equation. It just needs to be built and work well. Not sure if you missed my point or not. I have the same card as you and it is a GREAT card for hashing but a terrible card regarding noise. It is louder than everything that came before it. So, when you said I just built a 4u rig with 2 x r9 290, having 2 x 80mm fans and 2 x 120mm fans, It's circa 60db. I would imagine it would not be too dissimilar.
Rig number 2 under way with 3 of the r9 290's in.... it made no sense, as you picked the LOUDEST card regarding noise. Am I misunderstanding your bolded statement? The Alpha-Tech rig should be nothing like the R9 290 noise wise. IAS |
|
|
|
1U cases usually have smaller fans, which are much noisier. 1U cases require special PSU rather than plain ATA PSU, don't they?
I think it would be better to use 2U or 3U case, to have quieter device, with standard PSU,
and with margins (more space), which would allow to enlarge size or number of modules if their hashing speed is worse than expected.
Using "margins on margins" worked well for KnCMiner. The others provided less margins and it was often the source of their problems.
You brought up something I had been wondering about: What is the noise level of the 1U units? Really, an answer in Db would be great. (A range for now). I would imagine most people will be running these out of their homes and noise will be a HUGE factor. I just bought a LTC mining computer with an AMD R9-290 GPU in it - NOISY (via terrible design). I had to use an aftermarket fan/cooler to bring the level down (a lot). Warranty is gone when you do that. So, while things are still being finalized - Alpha Tech - Can you take noise into consideration? Most appreciated. Its about sharing I just built a 4u rig with 2 x r9 290, having 2 x 80mm fans and 2 x 120mm fans, It's circa 60db. I would imagine it would not be too dissimilar. Rig number 2 under way with 3 of the r9 290's in.... With due respect you picked the WORST card to base your example on, as I clearly stated above. The R9 290 is the Absolutely WORST designed card when it comes to noise level as well as poorly designed when it comes to cooling. There is a reason my altered card is BOTH quiet and cool (13-20 degrees cooler than stock!!!). The R9 290 is made to run at 95 degrees (or should I say "withstand") as they apparently used the cheapest design possible - which is why they "made it to run" at 95°. Alpha Tech can EASILY build a fairly quiet rig. The key is in the fans combined with an optimal cooling and air flow design. It is not rocket science and the work has basically already been done. (Just like the aftermarket R9 290 cooling system.) In this day and age, there is NO reason to have a rig running above 20-25Db's, depending on the level of cooling needed (and perhaps if the overclocking is huge). If we start making these rigs impossible to keep in houses, we do mining a great disservice imo. IAS |
|
|
|
why is quark dropping again? I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins.  I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800) Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate. I think that is a problem in a few ways: 1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return. 2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it. If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals. IAS It took you a while , but you finally figured out what I was telling people 20 pages ago.. With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). Only the botnets. Well, it is not exactly a criticism though. The price is just too low (unfortunately). It is in a precarious place for sure. But, if the price doubles from here, roughly .20 QRK, then we are ok again. Hopefully these Cryptos start another move. But regarding your point - "With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). " We will see. I still think the network will be supported, but the mining model at this price point doesn't work, for sure. Not a long term model but I will hang out and see what happens and support the network with 500kh/s. And remember, there will still be around 1,000,000 coins a year mined - so that should EASILY support the network (profit there). One more interesting thing - Mining is a hobby of sorts and done for more than money. Look at BTC, except for the first miners, buying BTC is ALWAYS better than mining it. I see that as being the same with other Cryptos most of the time. IAS At current price that's 78 000$. Hmm , even running a pool with 1% fee that's 780$/year and 65$ month and isn't quite attractive. So , how many computers can you power 24/7/ with 78 000 /year? Do the math , but the answer... you might be better not finding out. I'm in Germany, some of the highest energy costs I know of. I pay .30 kw/h. Now, there are MANY people that pay .10-.15 kw/h - that right there is break even to profit. And, as others have said, there are MUCH more efficient processors than my FX8350 (not efficient). And then there are a few with near free energy (work, certain countries, etc.) If you focus on why something won't work, that is what you will find. And vice versa.So, perhaps just open your perspective a bit, see both sides. If you say your brakes works fine and you don't test them although lots of people tell you should. you might die in a car accident , thinking that everything is fine. It's obvious that quark dev rushed to mine all the coins too early and forgot the bitcoin principle that claimed tx fees would be able to maintain the network safe when the rewards goes to near 0. And now a solutions needs to be diged up in order not to get prisoners of a botnet and a 97% mining pool. Which is what is happening right now. Lots of people die in car accidents with brakes that are heavily tested. We are dealing with an experimental technology here - this is the testing. To talk as if we know what is best when the experiment has just started is a bit of a reach. Quark is a variation of BTC to a degree and is trying something different and in a variety of areas. Quite different actually and that is a breath of fresh air. I gave some pretty fair numbers regarding energy and mining and you skipped right over that. Now, it appears your opinion is set in stone, so I'm not sure what else I can throw your way. My opinion is open, I don't know but I'm taking part in this experiment understanding the risks. If you don't want to take part, or you do, then state your point and move on IF you don't care to discuss the alternatives. None of us know and to state that you do, at this point, is ignorance. The Botnet situation might or might not be an issue. It is certainly interesting, but not high on my list of worries. Something to keep an eye on though. But, there are many brilliant innovations and possibilities here to keep an eye on. So, I won't get lost in just the part that is unknown. I'll also venture into the positives of what this coin brings, which has been spoken about at length here and on the Quark forum. So, the difference between our viewpoints, it appears, is that "you know" and "I don't know". And I've heard it said before, by some very wise people, to be very careful of anyone who says they know... IAS How about a real solution? Instead of relying on people with high efficiency mining gear or people with "free " energy or living in qatar (? or kuweit?) - Increase the inflation rate to 1.5 % or 2% in the first year? - Impose a minimal transaction fee and enforce it? etc... cause I'm sure there are better ideas how to overcome this that I can't think about it , rather than ... hoping people will or might ? I see the cryptos as one big experiment but I don't like to see it fail , for any coin (other than pure copycats). Even if failure means we learn and might do better in the future , i don't like to see something interesting washed away. Now I can hear you! I really don't have a great understanding about the inflation rate and where it should be. I will say, at current adoption, your level sounds too high. BUT, as things pick up, I can imagine it making more sense. The match behind all this is beyond me and I'm not sure if the creator really went deep there (and Satoshi with BTC as well.) As far as coins failing and such, I think we need to see some failures happen within the next year, as currently there is a lot of dilution going on. That said, there needs to be more than 1 or 2 Cryptos imo. The reasons are vast but difficult to communicate for I intuitionally (not institutionally ;-) see the Cryptos organically interacting with one another in a manner not yet seen (but in years from now). Looking forward to how this all rolls out, IAS |
|
|
|
why is quark dropping again? I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins. I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800) Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate. I think that is a problem in a few ways: 1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return. 2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it. If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals. IAS It took you a while , but you finally figured out what I was telling people 20 pages ago.. With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). Only the botnets. Well, it is not exactly a criticism though. The price is just too low (unfortunately). It is in a precarious place for sure. But, if the price doubles from here, roughly .20 QRK, then we are ok again. Hopefully these Cryptos start another move. But regarding your point - "With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). " We will see. I still think the network will be supported, but the mining model at this price point doesn't work, for sure. Not a long term model but I will hang out and see what happens and support the network with 500kh/s. And remember, there will still be around 1,000,000 coins a year mined - so that should EASILY support the network (profit there). One more interesting thing - Mining is a hobby of sorts and done for more than money. Look at BTC, except for the first miners, buying BTC is ALWAYS better than mining it. I see that as being the same with other Cryptos most of the time. IAS At current price that's 78 000$. Hmm , even running a pool with 1% fee that's 780$/year and 65$ month and isn't quite attractive. So , how many computers can you power 24/7/ with 78 000 /year? Do the math , but the answer... you might be better not finding out. I'm in Germany, some of the highest energy costs I know of. I pay .30 kw/h. Now, there are MANY people that pay .10-.15 kw/h - that right there is break even to profit. And, as others have said, there are MUCH more efficient processors than my FX8350 (not efficient). And then there are a few with near free energy (work, certain countries, etc.) If you focus on why something won't work, that is what you will find. And vice versa.So, perhaps just open your perspective a bit, see both sides. If you say your brakes works fine and you don't test them although lots of people tell you should. you might die in a car accident , thinking that everything is fine. It's obvious that quark dev rushed to mine all the coins too early and forgot the bitcoin principle that claimed tx fees would be able to maintain the network safe when the rewards goes to near 0. And now a solutions needs to be diged up in order not to get prisoners of a botnet and a 97% mining pool. Which is what is happening right now. Lots of people die in car accidents with brakes that are heavily tested. We are dealing with an experimental technology here - this is the testing. To talk as if we know what is best when the experiment has just started is a bit of a reach. Quark is a variation of BTC to a degree and is trying something different and in a variety of areas. Quite different actually and that is a breath of fresh air. I gave some pretty fair numbers regarding energy and mining and you skipped right over that. Now, it appears your opinion is set in stone, so I'm not sure what else I can throw your way. My opinion is open, I don't know but I'm taking part in this experiment understanding the risks. If you don't want to take part, or you do, then state your point and move on IF you don't care to discuss the alternatives. None of us know and to state that you do, at this point, is ignorance. The Botnet situation might or might not be an issue. It is certainly interesting, but not high on my list of worries. Something to keep an eye on though. But, there are many brilliant innovations and possibilities here to keep an eye on. So, I won't get lost in just the part that is unknown. I'll also venture into the positives of what this coin brings, which has been spoken about at length here and on the Quark forum. So, the difference between our viewpoints, it appears, is that "you know" and "I don't know". And I've heard it said before, by some very wise people, to be very careful of anyone who says they know... IAS |
|
|
|
1U cases usually have smaller fans, which are much noisier. 1U cases require special PSU rather than plain ATA PSU, don't they?
I think it would be better to use 2U or 3U case, to have quieter device, with standard PSU,
and with margins (more space), which would allow to enlarge size or number of modules if their hashing speed is worse than expected.
Using "margins on margins" worked well for KnCMiner. The others provided less margins and it was often the source of their problems.
You brought up something I had been wondering about: What is the noise level of the 1U units? Really, an answer in Db would be great. (A range for now). I would imagine most people will be running these out of their homes and noise will be a HUGE factor. I just bought a LTC mining computer with an AMD R9-290 GPU in it - NOISY (via terrible design). I had to use an aftermarket fan/cooler to bring the level down (a lot). Warranty is gone when you do that. So, while things are still being finalized - Alpha Tech - Can you take noise into consideration? Most appreciated. Its about sharing |
|
|
|
why is quark dropping again? I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins. I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800) Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate. I think that is a problem in a few ways: 1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return. 2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it. If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals. IAS It took you a while , but you finally figured out what I was telling people 20 pages ago.. With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). Only the botnets. Well, it is not exactly a criticism though. The price is just too low (unfortunately). It is in a precarious place for sure. But, if the price doubles from here, roughly .20 QRK, then we are ok again. Hopefully these Cryptos start another move. But regarding your point - "With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). " We will see. I still think the network will be supported, but the mining model at this price point doesn't work, for sure. Not a long term model but I will hang out and see what happens and support the network with 500kh/s. And remember, there will still be around 1,000,000 coins a year mined - so that should EASILY support the network (profit there). One more interesting thing - Mining is a hobby of sorts and done for more than money. Look at BTC, except for the first miners, buying BTC is ALWAYS better than mining it. I see that as being the same with other Cryptos most of the time. IAS At current price that's 78 000$. Hmm , even running a pool with 1% fee that's 780$/year and 65$ month and isn't quite attractive. So , how many computers can you power 24/7/ with 78 000 /year? Do the math , but the answer... you might be better not finding out. I'm in Germany, some of the highest energy costs I know of. I pay .30 kw/h. Now, there are MANY people that pay .10-.15 kw/h - that right there is break even to profit. And, as others have said, there are MUCH more efficient processors than my FX8350 (not efficient). And then there are a few with near free energy (work, certain countries, etc.) If you focus on why something won't work, that is what you will find. And vice versa. So, perhaps just open your perspective a bit, see both sides. |
|
|
|
Meanwhile the FED is printing around 1 TRILLION dollars a year. (Half of that to basically pay interest.) Talk about a bubble that is going to pop. Cryptocurrencies might be what helps save us from a banking collapse. I don't think they had that in mind when they made all these "Destined to break the banking system" decisions the last 13 years or so...  |
|
|
|
why is quark dropping again? I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins. I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800) Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate. I think that is a problem in a few ways: 1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return. 2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it. If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals. IAS It took you a while , but you finally figured out what I was telling people 20 pages ago.. With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). Only the botnets. Well, it is not exactly a criticism though. The price is just too low (unfortunately). It is in a precarious place for sure. But, if the price doubles from here, roughly .20 QRK, then we are ok again. Hopefully these Cryptos start another move. But regarding your point - "With such a small reward per block nobody will mine this coin after the next two reward drops (to 1). " We will see. I still think the network will be supported, but the mining model at this price point doesn't work, for sure. Not a long term model but I will hang out and see what happens and support the network with 500kh/s. And remember, there will still be around 1,000,000 coins a year mined - so that should EASILY support the network (profit there). One more interesting thing - Mining is a hobby of sorts and done for more than money. Look at BTC, except for the first miners, buying BTC is ALWAYS better than mining it. I see that as being the same with other Cryptos most of the time. IAS |
|
|
|
Hey Guys, just curious. I'm hashing with 80Gh/s and last week I generated .2 BTC in 7 days and now this week (ending tomorrow) I will have generated around .06. Now, this doesn't exactly coincide with the difficulty changing, did things just even out or Thanks, IAS |
|
|
|
On Dec 17 - https://alpha-t.net/news/development-update-17122013/"we have shown all hash rates as minimum expected figures." On Dec 24 - https://alpha-t.net/news/registration-open-updates/"Due to the previous errors of other ASIC companies, hash rate and shipping we have quoted are based on worst case scenarios. We expect to out-perform these quotations. All our boards will very likely have better hash rates than estimated/published. The published hash rates will be guaranteed as bare minimum if not better." Hey there, we have optimized our ASIC RTL design in such a way that we will be able to achieve higher performance with a very low number of chips, thus the density of chips per machine will be significantly reduced.
1) The average hashing power per chip has been beefed up significantly from our estimated 300Khs per chip to 800Khs per chip and thereby reducing the number of chips required to reach the required hashes.
Following your own statements, I herewith propose an alternative scenario :-) Keep the same density of chips per machine and increase the total performance / hashrate per machine :-) I was wondering about this and asked the question. They claimed the machines would still over perform. Bleh -- they make more money by reducing components, we get less hashing power. If they can do anything like the precedent that KNC has done, they will really go down in history. I mean KNC delivered 550Gh/s when the machines were originally spec'd at 350/s or so (300-400). That is 57% above spec. So, a 5Mh/s machine would be an almost 8Mh/s machine. That would be great and to be honest, looking at the hash rate rise, it would be in line with what KNC did to maintain profitability for the customers. I'm enjoying the posts from Fiaz, much appreciated. IAS |
|
|
|
so what can we do about it?
Well, it is mostly going to be driven by economics at this point. But, there are others who are like me - just mining to support the coin primarily. We will only do that up to a point and I really don't see that "point" coming anytime soon. So, continue to support the coin, hope for more infrastructure, software, support, etc. Basically, the price needs to move upwards for the long term health. But we are still early on here, so no worries yet. A bit more notable support (as with any coin) can really make a difference. IAS |
|
|
|
why is quark dropping again? I think quark needs more publicity cause it feels like it lives in the shadow of the new and big coins. I can take a guess and it is bothersome. I am running an AMD FX8350 processor. Not running it real hot yet, maybe at 500khs, as I'm waiting for the CPU cooler to come. (Then it will be at 800) Anyway, I'm generating about 1 QRK a day, which is around 3 bucks a month in USD and the electricity to generate those coins, here in Germany, is probably 5-10 EUROS. Just an estimate. I think that is a problem in a few ways: 1 - Those with a free CPU to mine coins might choose one with a better return. 2 - It is expensive no matter how you look at it. If my math is off correct me. I'm long Quark and a Quark holder but we need a higher price to keep the miners going, at least in some locals. IAS |
|
|
|
Can I persuade you to change your recommendation to downloading a ZIP file from github and validating the hash? And actively *discourage* visitors from trusting HTML loaded from a live website? Yours is the only paper wallet site recommending this approach, and I can't figure out why.
There's no reason for a visitor to believe that they derive much additional security from disconnecting from the Internet after loading the offlineaddress.com code live. As you well understand, if the RNG is compromised in the HTML they receive, it doesn't matter whether or not the visitor is still online when they generate wallets.
Your recommendation seems doubly problematic when:
1) You don't force HTTPS on your server.
2) You don't provide a mechanism for a visitor to validate the integrity of the HTML they're receiving from your website against some signed codebase of your own.
In short, you're advocating blind faith in the security of your web server. The only argument I've heard you make in support of this is that it's unrealistic to expect visitors to download a ZIP file from github and run the HTML locally. I'm really alarmed by this. I like your concern about RNGs, but I'm wary of your lack of concern about website security. You've got a nice site, good software, and strong promotion -- but you're advocating a standard of security that's much more relaxed than anyone else doing this. Why is this?
I appreciate your concerns. Recommendation for downloading zip from GitHub will be added once code base isn't growing too fast.  If RNG is compromised users will still be secure because all random date is user-provided. Instructing users to primary check hashes is not appealing to broad audience (you know how hard it is to check hashes or signatures on Windows machines  ). Discouraging users from using loaded HTML doesn't make sense to me - there is no purpose in having website saying you shouldn't use it. 1) I'm working on this, HTTPS will be added within a week or so. 2) I provide GitHub commit ID, and hashes will be added soon. In short: yes, there are few things that should be added (like HTTPS and hash validation), and I'm working on it. I'm concerned about both web security and RNGs. With my limited security background (really worked with DB's) I understand the HUGE security risks of not having HTTPS on the server. This means, at any time between now and when "the code stops growing too fast", a site wide hack can occur. And only having an "online" version is, has been said, a validation problem. Again, I'm no security expert but this just jumps out at me. Is it worth risking the money of others here? What is the benefit? To whom? Honestly, does the user taking a risk benefit them or a potential hacker? Why take the chance? There are sites that have the security and measures that has been brought up here. The world is looking at BTC now. There are extremely skilled hackers out there where money is involved, not to mention governments, agencies, etc. This thread is in part an advertisement for them to get ideas; A bit worrisome. We are talking about an open exploit I would say. I am giving you a website that can deal in millions of dollars and there is no HTTPS there. There is no offline validation. It doesn't add up to me, how can a person like yourself that clearly is an expert in the area, be making some huge mistakes here? I see it and I'm no expert; I see the vulnerabilities and they scare me. I was brought to this thread because I'm always looking to see what is new in the offline wallet area and while just doing some basic checks, I noticed you had just opened your account both here and on GitHub as well. No guilt by association there, but when dealing with huge amounts of money, I'd say it is fair to look closer. If I'm off here and time bears this out, then apology in advance. To continue, Would I use the private key I got from a website while it was online a moment before, with no means of validation and on top of that, there is no HTTPS. I can't imagine sending value there (even with the brilliant features regarding RNG's mentioned before). The RNG side may be better, but if there are some basic vulnerabilities at essentially the safe door it really doesn't matter what is below that level. BTW, some of your ideas sound great, this isn't all criticism. I'm just trying to share what my perspective is. Just being concerned, nothing personal here. Its about sharing |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
