2023 Diff thread now opened.

[philipma1957]

Latest Block:   820777  (8 minutes ago)
Previous Retarget:   last Sunday at 5:31 AM  (-0.9592%)

I was surprised that no one else celebrated the difficult drop, seems like only Phill is following  . finally, after 6 consecutive epochs (roughly 3 months) or since (2023-09-06 epoch to be exact), we got a small -1% drop which isn't all that great but better than 5%+.

Fees are down to 30 sat/Vbyte, price is stabilizing at around 41k, so 1PH earns roughly $95 / 0.00229 BTC which isn't bad considering the difficulty, the climb from mid-30s to 40k really helped a lot of miners, 5 months for the halving -- things are about to heat.

yeah large farms will practice the cheapest method to keeps fees at at least 30 sats.


from blockchain.com

1.11
0.34
0.37
0.43
0.63
0.56
0.37
0.30
0.44
0.57


last ten blocks were between 0.30-1.11 in fees

pretend that averages to 0.7

so 6.25 + 0.7 = 6.95  0.7/6.95 = 10 percent of earnings.


but in April 2024

3.125 + 0.7 = 3.825 this is 0.7/3.825 = 18 percent of the earnings.


So driving up fees will be a large miner desires more than ever.

look at 2028

1.5625 + 0.7 = 2.2625 means  0.7/1.5625 = 31% of the earnings are fees.



and in 2032

0.78125 + 0.7 = 1.48125 means 0.7/1.48125 = 47% of the earnings are fees.


it is pretty certain that 30 sats can be done by big pools for long maybe forever time periods.

So here's the the next ½ ing

[1714238745]

1714238745

[1714238745]

1714238745

[1714238745]

1714238745

[1714238745]

1714238745

[1714238745]

1714238745

[joker_josue]

it is pretty certain that 30 sats can be done by big pools for long maybe forever time periods.

So here's the the next ½ ing

The problem for us, simple users, will be when miners think that the average of 30 sats is no longer enough.
If they start to think that the ideal is 50 or 100 sats, the most advantageous average, it will be very difficult to carry out transactions.

[philipma1957]

it is pretty certain that 30 sats can be done by big pools for long maybe forever time periods.

So here's the the next ½ ing

The problem for us, simple users, will be when miners think that the average of 30 sats is no longer enough.
If they start to think that the ideal is 50 or 100 sats, the most advantageous average, it will be very difficult to carry out transactions.

well if btc was 10,000 and not 40,000 the fees would be cheaper by a factor of 4x.

 So no one that invests wants that.

https://newhedge.io/terminal/bitcoin/difficulty-estimator

Latest Block:   820830  (10 minutes ago)

Current Pace:   99.7344%  (319 / 319.85 expected, 0.85 behind)

Previous Difficulty:   67957790298897.88                           
Current Difficulty:   67305906902031.39                           
Next Difficulty:   between 67414022607132 and 67678344651489
Next Difficulty Change:   between +0.1606% and +0.5534%
Previous Retarget:   last Saturday at 10:31 PM  (-0.9592%)
Next Retarget (earliest):   December 23, 2023 at 10:46 PM  (in 11d 18h 57m 9s)
Next Retarget (latest):   December 23, 2023 at 11:25 PM  (in 11d 19h 35m 11s)
Projected Epoch Length:   between 14d 0h 15m 38s and 14d 0h 53m 41s

block fees are pretty stable about 30-50 works at the moment

[mikeywith]

it is pretty certain that 30 sats can be done by big pools for long maybe forever time periods.

Yes, some coordination between the largest 4-5 pools can certainly increase the fees, one pool alone can't do it since whatever they spend will be taken by other pools.

An example of such an "attack" or spam would be so, imagine there are only 2 pools out there, each with 50% hashrate, so every pool finds every other block.

Mikey pool and phill pool

We agree to send 5,000,000 transaction each, with fee of 30 sat/Vbyte, since we share the blocks by half, we both would get our money back, other users will have to pay above 30 to get in.

This will of course require that the pool payout scheme changes or else they will spend more on miners rewards than what they make, but pretty doable, if you tell miners you would raise their profit by 20% but keep half of it to yourself -- they likely won't mind.

But again for such an attack, if you don't own 100% of the blocks, you are subject to lose, so if you have 70% you have to account for the remaining 30% which are not yours and so 30 sat would be more like 40 sat or more.

There is also a risk of lack of transactions if you set the bar too high, so to artificially increase transaction fees it is pretty hard but doable.

I believe the free market will handle this, if we do not censor certain types of transactions we will eventually get to a few million transactions per day, since btc does only half a million, fees will increase, that would make btc a bad choice for buying a $2 coffee, but who does that anyway? Even at 1 sat it makes no sense to buy that.

So BTC ends up being some sort of a final settlement station like a decentralized version of a central bank, where every transaction is the result of thousands of other transactions done on side-chain or layer 2.

Someone will come here and say " oh but satoshi said its a p2p e-cash .... " well.

[joker_josue]

There is also a risk of lack of transactions if you set the bar too high, so to artificially increase transaction fees it is pretty hard but doable.

I believe the free market will handle this, if we do not censor certain types of transactions we will eventually get to a few million transactions per day, since btc does only half a million, fees will increase, that would make btc a bad choice for buying a $2 coffee, but who does that anyway? Even at 1 sat it makes no sense to buy that.

So BTC ends up being some sort of a final settlement station like a decentralized version of a central bank, where every transaction is the result of thousands of other transactions done on side-chain or layer 2.

Someone will come here and say " oh but satoshi said its a p2p e-cash .... " well.

I don't think it's that difficult for this to happen, because gradually large pools start to have more and more weight in the global hash. Which makes it easy for them to reach an agreement.

And he continued to think that Bitcoin can be used for everyday transactions. I'm not saying for a coffee, but for dinner, yes. But to do this, you need minimally acceptable transaction fees at an acceptable speed.

I don't think the fact that the block is processed every 10 minutes is a problem. The problem is with the fees. I would even accept LN being used for day-to-day transactions, but this does not invalidate the need to have minimally acceptable rates to be able to use the network.

[mikeywith]

I don't think it's that difficult for this to happen, because gradually large pools start to have more and more weight in the global hash. Which makes it easy for them to reach an agreement.

Actually, it's indeed very difficult when you dive deep into the math of it.

Let's take an extreme scenario of pools that own 90% of the hashrate and manage to reach this sort of agreement, and we would keep the figures in USD for easier understanding.

Let's say they would invest a total of 1 million just to artificially spam the blockchain to increase fees

All these pools combined will find an average 130 blocks a day while the other 10% will find 14 pools.

1 million a day means they inject $6,944 in every block, so the 10% pools will make $97,222 without having to invest or risk anything, that's very close to 3M a month that the 90% folks will have to risk.

Obviously, if they manage to actually increase the fee and get other transactions to pay more, they could just drop their transactions at some point, but there is no guarantee that there will always be some transitions paying more than their 'spam' transactions, also some of those 90% folks will look at the 10% and will say (those guys make more than we do % wise, they don't risk anything, and they still get some of the spam fee we put + the real transactions that try to outbid us) which makes joining the 14% group more beneficial.

Now if another 10% joins that 10% and become 20% vs 80%, each of those 80% group will need to pay more to get that combined 1M, and then there will be double the amount at risk (6M a month) since now the small group gets 28 blocks a day.


I honestly think it's beyond difficult to achieve, they are more likely to agree on simply purging transactions with less than X sat / Vbyte than spamming the blockchain to increase fees, and then even that isn't going to work for long -- there will always be someone else who is willing to mine those purged transactions when there aren't bigger ones.

[philipma1957]

I don't think it's that difficult for this to happen, because gradually large pools start to have more and more weight in the global hash. Which makes it easy for them to reach an agreement.

Actually, it's indeed very difficult when you dive deep into the math of it.

Let's take an extreme scenario of pools that own 90% of the hashrate and manage to reach this sort of agreement, and we would keep the figures in USD for easier understanding.

Let's say they would invest a total of 1 million just to artificially spam the blockchain to increase fees

All these pools combined will find an average 130 blocks a day while the other 10% will find 14 pools.

1 million a day means they inject $6,944 in every block, so the 10% pools will make $97,222 without having to invest or risk anything, that's very close to 3M a month that the 90% folks will have to risk.

Obviously, if they manage to actually increase the fee and get other transactions to pay more, they could just drop their transactions at some point, but there is no guarantee that there will always be some transitions paying more than their 'spam' transactions, also some of those 90% folks will look at the 10% and will say (those guys make more than we do % wise, they don't risk anything, and they still get some of the spam fee we put + the real transactions that try to outbid us) which makes joining the 14% group more beneficial.

Now if another 10% joins that 10% and become 20% vs 80%, each of those 80% group will need to pay more to get that combined 1M, and then there will be double the amount at risk (6M a month) since now the small group gets 28 blocks a day.


I honestly think it's beyond difficult to achieve, they are more likely to agree on simply purging transactions with less than X sat / Vbyte than spamming the blockchain to increase fees, and then even that isn't going to work for long -- there will always be someone else who is willing to mine those purged transactions when there aren't bigger ones.

well 2032 is 8 years off blocks will be 0.78xxx plus  a fee of ?

  that should be the clue as to the working ideas of this money system.


Scrypt looks much better for sends under $100 than btc does and that is now never mind 2032.

[stompix]

I was surprised that no one else celebrated the difficult drop,

You call that a drop? 
If we speak talk in $ terms the last dump did more damage to the income that 3 of these drops would do, adding the slowdown in fees makes it feel like a non-event.
But, it did break the consecutive positive adjustments, a thing I'm really curious why as all I hear from mining companies is expansion, buying gear, powering up facilities and so on, so unless a lot of big guys decided to power down the old gears and didn't have time to switch back the new ones it makes little sense. But again, the second but, if that would have been the case we would now see an increase up by at least two procent, which...is not happening either. So I feel like I need to quit this guessing game.

I honestly think it's beyond difficult to achieve, they are more likely to agree on simply purging transactions with less than X sat / Vbyte than spamming the blockchain to increase fees, and then even that isn't going to work for long -- there will always be someone else who is willing to mine those purged transactions when there aren't bigger ones.

With thousands watching the blockchain and managing to find those few transactions some pool refused to include, I think it will be damn hard for a pool to fake this and not end up mining their own tx, especially since lately blocks have been really random, nearly had a record with more than 90 minutes and at the same time I saw 5 in ~ 12, if they tried something like this there would be traces, but right now there are only suppositions.

[mikeywith]

You call that a drop?  

Technically, you can't call it anything else.

For real tho, i don't take 0% as my baseline, the average diff increment for the past year or so is around 2-3%, so a -1% is viewed as -2-3% for me, just the fact that it did not go up is great news.

So I feel like I need to quit this guessing game.

I have been watching diff changes for years now, and so do you, did you notice that the diff change made a lot more sense back when the main hub was in China? U.S money is just crazy, it is hard to understand.

[philipma1957]

You call that a drop?  

Technically, you can't call it anything else.

For real tho, i don't take 0% as my baseline, the average diff increment for the past year or so is around 2-3%, so a -1% is viewed as -2-3% for me, just the fact that it did not go up is great news.

So I feel like I need to quit this guessing game.

I have been watching diff changes for years now, and so do you, did you notice that the diff change made a lot more sense back when the main hub was in China? U.S money is just crazy, it is hard to understand.

Because they play with clocking as they want to raise fees in prep for the ½ ing.

Study from 2021 April Chinese hash dump to now all I see is a continued effort from large miners to raise fees.

They saw fees sky rocket when hash rate dropped they now riff on this first 2 or 3 days each jump. - hashrate raising fees just  look at 2023 fees.

[stompix]

So, hibernating like bears already?
Wake up!!!! Everything is positive!

Hashrate growth is

Current Pace:   103.9475%  (1136 / 1092.86 expected, 43.14 ahead)

Fees are skyrocketing
https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000008ed27e5d18709c450b78367df4bfbf37dd7b9a1fb6ec
Total fees   ‎7.861 BTC $329,417

Christmas spirit!! Or somethin like that for the 80% of the rest of the globe who doesn't have Christmas!
Imagine we wouldn't have a positive adjustment and so 40 less blocks, how would the fees look like tomorrow afternoon/ night?
Yummmy yummy!!!

[philipma1957]

So, hibernating like bears already?
Wake up!!!! Everything is positive!

Hashrate growth is

Current Pace:   103.9475%  (1136 / 1092.86 expected, 43.14 ahead)

Fees are skyrocketing
https://mempool.space/block/000000000000000000008ed27e5d18709c450b78367df4bfbf37dd7b9a1fb6ec
Total fees   ‎7.861 BTC $329,417

Christmas spirit!! Or somethin like that for the 80% of the rest of the globe who doesn't have Christmas!
Imagine we wouldn't have a positive adjustment and so 40 less blocks, how would the fees look like tomorrow afternoon/ night?
Yummmy yummy!!!

yeah and part of the method is down clock all of foundry first 750 to 1000 blocks.

clog the mempool


then push gear the last 1000 blocks  rack in the high fees.
from blockchair.com

block fees

4.60
5.29
2.49
3.47
3.04
3.95
3.20
2.37
3.24
3.43
2.87
3.01
3.98
3.57
4.60
4.45
3.11
3.73
4.36
4.38
4.38
4.00
3.62
3.41
3.01
2.63
2.56
4.29
2.83
2.79
2.90
3.19
3.25
2.65
3.60
3.93
4.75
2.94
2.84
2.55
3,58
3.70
3.65
3.56
3.96
4.64
5.40
4.51
4.77
5.55
5.55
6.19
5.44
5.71
6.36
6.76
6.89
7.86
6.36
5.83
5.96
5.06
4.17
4.07
3.94
3.40
4.74
3.24
3.09
3.67
3.41
3,41
3.29
3.30
4.00
2.98
3.85
4.81
3.83
3.83
3.83
3.75
3.46
4.58
4.18
3.46
3.57
4.60
3.19
4.36
3.08
2.56
3.65
3.51
3.21
3.27
3.62
3.19
3.80
3.14
3.41
3.62
3.43
3.71
3.91
3.57
3.45
3.96
3.57
3.45
3.96
4.72
3.67
3.82
4.52
4.46
4.11
 0 >>>>>>>>>> ant pool
3.99
4.08
3.94
4.46
3.53
3.64
3.88
3.99
4.05
5.26
4.02
4.41.
4.25
4.29
4.73
4.75
5.00
6.01
5.88
6.51
5.54
6.30.
5.00
5.09
5.39
6.25
4.73
5.05
5.73
5.38
6.07

0 >>>>> AntPool

5.41
5.35
6.66
6.08
5.53
5.84
6.24
6.61
7.74
7.05,
5.56
5.91
6.15
5.91
5.99
6.45
6.74
6.93
7.38
7.41,
8.05
7.31
7.16
4.87
4.84
4.84
4.07
4.19
4.61
4.08.
4.08
4.80
4.48
4.22
4.66
3.88
3.76
4.19
2.76
4.13,
3.04
3.05
3.22
3.17
3.56
3.38
3.99
3.85
3.13
3.21,
3.56
3.38
3.73
3.57
3.79
3.77
4.21
4.58
3.89
4.29,
3.03
3.21
3.11
2.30
2.54
2.33
2.25
2.78
2.33
2.67,
2.33
2.66
2.59
3.03
3.26
2.92
2.23
2.37
2.57
2.98,
2.40
2.85
2.38
2.61
2.57
1.68
1.77
2.17

nice run for about 2 days of blocks around 50% fees

[mikeywith]

Christmas spirit!!

This has been usually the worst time for BTC, whenever we approach the year-end, things collapse, I assume with fees being this high it must feel terrible to many Bitcoin users, price seems to be holding, and miners are having the best time, times they have not seen this year, not that they desperately need it given the continuous expansion without the fee raise, but ya, at least, small/home miners could really use that little extra profit.

[philipma1957]

Christmas spirit!!

This has been usually the worst time for BTC, whenever we approach the year-end, things collapse, I assume with fees being this high it must feel terrible to many Bitcoin users, price seems to be holding, and miners are having the best time, times they have not seen this year, not that they desperately need it given the continuous expansion without the fee raise, but ya, at least, small/home miners could really use that little extra profit.

And the big farms can do this with ease.

Just down clock for 4 days clog the mempool

then raise clocks and grab high fee blocks for the last 10 days of the jump.

How many times have we heard

" this time it is different "


well this ½ ing it will be different than any other time.

I wonder how long before the btc maxes realize how fucked they are by doing that..

So my L7's are whaling
my gpu's are waking back up
my s19's are whaling

dec will be a really good month.


What makes me laugh are the fools that think ordinals are to blame. they are a mere tool.


the issue is the tx carrying power of :

btc mined sha256       6 blocks an hour.

vs


doge/ltc scrypt            72 blocks an hour

[joker_josue]

What makes me laugh are the fools that think ordinals are to blame. they are a mere tool.

Ordinals are just a tool that has emerged that facilitates this scheme of trying to cause network constation with the aim of increasing fees - as a result, they continue.

I am of the opinion that we are entering a time where the large mining pools are close to functioning as a cartel in order to "control" how the network works. It will always be very difficult to prove this, and of course it is just my opinion, but looking at how mining is going, this scenario is quite possible. We are left with just 4 or 5 large mining pools, which control more than 50% of the hash.

I think it is increasingly important to decentralize mining, because it is becoming very centralized. How can this be done? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an idea of how to decentralize, but at least putting the issue in public debate is a way forward.

[DaCryptoRaccoon]

What makes me laugh are the fools that think ordinals are to blame. they are a mere tool.

Ordinals are just a tool that has emerged that facilitates this scheme of trying to cause network constation with the aim of increasing fees - as a result, they continue.

I am of the opinion that we are entering a time where the large mining pools are close to functioning as a cartel in order to "control" how the network works. It will always be very difficult to prove this, and of course it is just my opinion, but looking at how mining is going, this scenario is quite possible. We are left with just 4 or 5 large mining pools, which control more than 50% of the hash.

I think it is increasingly important to decentralize mining, because it is becoming very centralized. How can this be done? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an idea of how to decentralize, but at least putting the issue in public debate is a way forward.

I've said it for years: more people running their own pools would help a lot. The reason behind this is simple; pools and mining have always been shrouded in mystery for some reason. Movements like Bitaxe, I believe, are starting to bring mining more into the light, along with pools.

1 Miner - 1 Pool.
1 CPU - 1 Vote.

I've said for years that if more user-friendly solutions emerge for running your own pool, many would do this, and the network would look very different in a very short space of time, I believe.

Though would people give up on the exsisting way.  Probably not but would be pretty spectacular if it happened.

[philipma1957]

What makes me laugh are the fools that think ordinals are to blame. they are a mere tool.

Ordinals are just a tool that has emerged that facilitates this scheme of trying to cause network constation with the aim of increasing fees - as a result, they continue.

I am of the opinion that we are entering a time where the large mining pools are close to functioning as a cartel in order to "control" how the network works. It will always be very difficult to prove this, and of course it is just my opinion, but looking at how mining is going, this scenario is quite possible. We are left with just 4 or 5 large mining pools, which control more than 50% of the hash.

I think it is increasingly important to decentralize mining, because it is becoming very centralized. How can this be done? Unfortunately, I can't come up with an idea of how to decentralize, but at least putting the issue in public debate is a way forward.

I've said it for years: more people running their own pools would help a lot. The reason behind this is simple; pools and mining have always been shrouded in mystery for some reason. Movements like Bitaxe, I believe, are starting to bring mining more into the light, along with pools.

1 Miner - 1 Pool.
1 CPU - 1 Vote.

I've said for years that if more user-friendly solutions emerge for running your own pool, many would do this, and the network would look very different in a very short space of time, I believe.

Though would people give up on the exsisting way.  Probably not but would be pretty spectacular if it happened.

I own and or manage
 6ph of sha 256
60gh of scrypt
3500 mh of kawpow

I burn more than 200kwatts soon to be close to 275kwatts.


All of the above along with the solar we invested is near 1,000,000

Not small but not huge.

If we run our own btc pool it takes about six months to hit a block of btc. If luck is bad we could go two years.

If we run scrypt pools it will take about six weeks to hit an Ltc or a doge block.

the kawpow points to nicehash pays in btc. if we ran a kawpow pool and purchased btc I am not quite sure

how quickly I would hit a block and then buy btc with it.


along with money put into this four man venture we put a lot of labor into it.

btc got too big if a million dollar setup is too small.

[mikeywith]

I've said for years that if more user-friendly solutions emerge for running your own pool, many would do this, and the network would look very different in a very short space of time, I believe.

You have been wrong for so many years then, sorry to be the one to tell you the truth, but ya, none of what you suggested would fix anything, because there is nothing to fix in the first place, you are framing this situation to be an attack against BTC where large pools are double spending or doing some weird shit, but that's not the case, the case is -- miners are trying to maximize their profit, it doesn't matter if you have 5 pools or 500 of them they will ALL want the same thing which is more profit.

The notion that everyone will run their own pools is funny, it doesn't make sense, this is not how Bitcoin works, if this was about decentralizing potatoes, it would work, everyone plants a couple of potatoes in the backyard and the big factories could go bankrupt, but the key to mining is "variance".

I am probably one of the largest miners around the forum and it would be so stupid of me to run my own pool. Even if I were to partner with everyone else here, we would hardly hit 50ph, without any technical issues, no difficulty increase, none of us leaving halfway, and 100% luck, we need 75 days of mining before any of us can get a dime in their wallet, with 200% luck for a single block which is pretty possible, we could sit there for 150 days waiting to get paid.

Also, given that we are nothing but a bunch of poor guys who can't afford to run our dozen nodes across the globe, it would still be very possible to lose that block after 150 days, so who in their mind is willing to take that risk when they can get paid by share or mine to large PPLNS pool? nobody would do that with 50PH, let alone a single miner with 2*S19 who needs 52 years to mine their first block.

What makes me laugh are the fools that think ordinals are to blame. they are a mere tool.

Actually, the 'normal' transactions folks pay 150% more than the Ordinal folks do, fees could still be this high even without ordinals on the blockchain, they may not say as high as 300 sat/Vbyte but it's almost sure that the 1-2 sats days are gone, people should accept that and start looking for an alternative way to move value, something that makes economical sense, but many people just want to use the little space on the main chain and are fighting everything that raises the fees.

[joker_josue]

Actually, the 'normal' transactions folks pay 150% more than the Ordinal folks do, fees could still be this high even without ordinals on the blockchain, they may not say as high as 300 sat/Vbyte but it's almost sure that the 1-2 sats days are gone, people should accept that and start looking for an alternative way to move value, something that makes economical sense, but many people just want to use the little space on the main chain and are fighting everything that raises the fees.

It doesn't make sense to add layers upon layers to Bitcoin for transactions, in my opinion, of course. Because I don't see this as a solution.
In addition to the second and third layers being more insecure and exposed to problems, we continue to need to move BTC from the first layer to the second or third.

Just the other day I gave a very simple example:
It's Friday and I want to go out to dinner with my wife, and I want to pay with bitcoin. So I decide to move $150 to LN to pay for dinner and a few other things. But, when I go to make this movement, I see that the fee is $50. I'd rather not go out to dinner than spend that fee.

I don't blame Ordinal, although I think they should be in the second or third layer. But I don't blame them or anyone else, per se. (Even though I think the pools are taking advantage of this for greater profits, but as you said, it's part of the business.) I just think that a solution has to be found for this issue, so that everything is minimally viable for everyone. I have some ideas, but I don't want to cause more offtopic.

[philipma1957]

Actually, the 'normal' transactions folks pay 150% more than the Ordinal folks do, fees could still be this high even without ordinals on the blockchain, they may not say as high as 300 sat/Vbyte but it's almost sure that the 1-2 sats days are gone, people should accept that and start looking for an alternative way to move value, something that makes economical sense, but many people just want to use the little space on the main chain and are fighting everything that raises the fees.

It doesn't make sense to add layers upon layers to Bitcoin for transactions, in my opinion, of course. Because I don't see this as a solution.
In addition to the second and third layers being more insecure and exposed to problems, we continue to need to move BTC from the first layer to the second or third.

Just the other day I gave a very simple example:
It's Friday and I want to go out to dinner with my wife, and I want to pay with bitcoin. So I decide to move $150 to LN to pay for dinner and a few other things. But, when I go to make this movement, I see that the fee is $50. I'd rather not go out to dinner than spend that fee.

I don't blame Ordinal, although I think they should be in the second or third layer. But I don't blame them or anyone else, per se. (Even though I think the pools are taking advantage of this for greater profits, but as you said, it's part of the business.) I just think that a solution has to be found for this issue, so that everything is minimally viable for everyone. I have some ideas, but I don't want to cause more offtopic.

I am trying to do a how to use an LN service cheaply thread.

I mine some gear to nicehash. Not a lot mostly gpus which mine kawpow and pay in btc.

So my nicehash account is kyc and shows about 1000-2000 a month income which sits as btc.

the nice thing is nicehash allows LN or blockchain sends and receives of btc.

so it is a no maintenance channel for the btc mined into it.

I did my first LN send ever today.

Here is the thread

spacer.

I sent 53 usd worth of btc for next to nothing look below

This means mining at home and using a nicehash account to do it makes sense even if you lose money mining you see a lot on fees.


So for instance you and I have been dickering about an s19 2 board unit.

it will earn 6 or 7 bucks a day. and burn 48 kwatts your power is 15 cents. or 7.20


so you wants to earn 6 or 7 a day when you burn 7.2 in power.

you do since if you run the unit at nicehash you get easy peasy access to an LN network and can grow the LN wallet by 6 or 7 a day.

the one send above you mentioned was 50 bucks.

So in a way I see an opportunity for a small 1 s19 miner to easily maintain an LN use wallet.