PoW or PoS: The Difference Between Mined and Non-Mined Crypto
The whole crypto world discusses how Ethereum will switch from Proof of Work to Proof of Stake now. This change can significantly affect the cryptocurrency market. What are the positive and negative sides of PoW and PoS? Cryptocurrencies can be divided into two types: those that can be mined (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero) and pre-mined ones (Ripple, Stellar, Cardano, EOS, NEO).
What is the big difference?
Although they differ in the method of generation, the basis of both types of crypto is the same: verification. Every transaction processed by the network must be verified by someone to ensure that virtual money has not been spent twice. Here we are talking about the difference in the verification process. Transaction groups are combined into a block; after verification, the block joins other previously confirmed blocks, and create a chain of transactions, or blockchain.
PoW: Mined Crypto
Mining is a process in which individuals, groups, or companies solve complex mathematical equations to verify transaction blocks using powerful computers. These math problems are part of the encryption process that protects transactions from cybercriminals and third party access. The first who solves the problem and signs a block of transactions receives a reward. The miner, who confirmed the block of transactions e.g. in the Bitcoin network, receives a reward in BTC.
Disadvantages of Mined Crypto
Mining can be very expensive due to the large amounts of electricity consumed. In mined crypto with less capitalization, competition is usually lower than in BTC.
BTC mining requires special ASIC chips, that are combined into huge farms. Electricity is one of the main expenses for these projects. That is why China, where electricity is relatively cheap, has become a home to four of the five largest Bitcoin mining companies in the world.
Mining farms have to spend significant money funds on new equipment, which becomes out of date very fast.
Large projects need additional cooling, as servers and graphics cards heat up to high temperatures during operations.
The Proof-of-Work model is potentially vulnerable to a 51% attack (when a group of people with 51% of the computing power gains control of the network and its participants). For popular cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), and Monero (XMR) this is not a problem due to their large capitalization. However, minor cryptocurrencies with long block processing times and low daily volumes are risking a lot.
PoS: Non-Mined Crypto
At the other end of the spectrum are pre-mined cryptocurrencies such as Ripple (XRP), Stellar, Cardano, EOS, and NEO. In the PoS model, super-powered computers are not needed, and participants do not compete for the right to sign the next block. Thus, the costs of this approach are significantly lower. Transaction verification is carried out by cryptocurrency owners. The more cryptocurrencies you have, the longer you own it, the higher the probability that you will be selected to check the transaction block. Certain mechanisms are built into the system that prevents the dominance of large cryptocurrency holders over the verification process. There are many random ways to select owners who get the right to sign a transaction block. This ensures that small holders have a chance to participate in the process.
Disadvantages of Non-Mined Crypto
Despite the fact that the costs of the Proof-of-Stake method are lower, PoS has its drawbacks.
Such cryptocurrencies are not threatened by an attack of 51%, however, another trouble replaces it — a person who posses 51% of all tokens in circulation can gain control of the network and its participants. Of course, in the case of cryptocurrencies with high capitalization, the possibility of this scenario is low, but small partners may suffer from this vulnerability.
The Proof-of-Stake model also gives major owners additional votes in determining the future development of the network. Most NEO tokens) belong to several founders, for instance. This helps increase transaction speed and reduces consensus-building time, but also makes cryptocurrency too centralized. In other words, in the PoS model, large players gain significant power, which is theoretically impossible with the PoW model.
Which method is better?
Both methods have their pros and cons. Nevertheless, sooner or later, some of the largest mined currencies (e.g. BTC) will reach their token limit. At this point, they will have to switch to Proof-of-Stake. Since it significantly reduces power consumption and doesn't require powerful computers, gradually all crypto including BTC will switch to a non-mined model just like Ether did.
Canaan's new ASIC is a Pipe Dream, not an Ethereum Threat
So, yesterday Kristy-Leigh Minehan posted on Twitter that a company named Canaan announced an ASIC that is capable of 0.68W/Mhs That's 2200Mh/s running at 1500w https://twitter.com/OhGodAGirl/status/1176938519866089473 Here is a list of how it compares to other ASICs and GPUs. https://blog.miningstore.com/blog/ethereum-mining-hardware-for-2019 She used this tweet to promote the need for ProgPoW Today, I am attempting to explain that Canaan is not a threat to centralize Ethereum mining with their ASICs. First, I cannot find any information regarding Canaan announcing an Ethereum ASIC other than Kristy's twitter post There is only one article written about it and it uses Kristy's twitter post as their source. https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-asic-dominates-gpu-performance/ Nothing on Canaan's website talks about this miner Nor does Canaan's twitter account mention anything like this. If we look closely at Kristy's twitter picture, you can see the Canaan Ethereum miner will be called the V10. I cannot find any info anywhere on this miner. You would think that if Canaan is unveiling a new product, they would be talking about it more to spread awareness and raise hype, but they aren't. I mean, they made a big to-do when they announced the A10 bitcoin miner in March, so why are they posting nothing about the V10 ethereum miner. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160 And a google search will show many many more articles written about the bitcoin A10 after its announcement. I'm not saying the announcement isn't real, just that I find it odd that the company isn't talking about it themselves. Canaan did respond to a tweet from “cryptoState”, the writer's of the article based on Kristy's tweet. Canaan replied that the v10 is not an official worldwide Canaan product. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1177088253431668736 and further in the cryptostate article, Canaan says “It is a little hard to explain, but those are not products designed and built by Canaan engineering. They are products sold by the domestic sales team and are not an official worldwide Canaan product,” I do not know what that means exactly. If it means it's not an official Canaan product, or that it won't be available worldwide, or what. But this is the first clue to me that it isn't anything to worry about. If it's not an official Canaan product, then it doesn't seem like it will have support from Canaan to bring it to market. It won't be marketed by Canaan, use it's supply chain, it's business resources and contacts, use it's support system, or be built by Canaan. Next, yes 0.68W/Mhs is more efficient than GPUs, but that isn't all that matters when miners choose the devices to use. What matters also is how much the machine costs. If the V10 is price too high, then it's not something to worry about. Without a price, Kristy can't claim in good faith that the V10 is something Ethereum needs to worry about and a reason ProgPoW needs to be adopted. I'm not sure how to price the thing, myself, but at current ETH prices and hashrate, it would make $2200 in 4 months. I think generally ASIC mfgs price their machines to break even in 3-4 months. So that would be the machine will cost around $2200. BUT, that's only if ONE machine is running on the network. The more machines on the network, the less profitable they are. If we look at the Avalon A1066, it's november batch costs $1390, and has a break-even time of 464 months at current bitcoin prices. So it seems to me the Canaan V10 will be quite a bit more expensive than $2200. Which doesn't make it feasible for that many people to buy. Next, there was no product on display at the New Era Mining Summit, where this product was announced. Only some graphics of numbers they claim. Nor can I find any technical documentation talking about how they plan to achieve the advertised hashrate I tweeted Kristy telling her that this seems, at best, like just an idea to me, to help them raise money and that it takes more than an idea to bring an ASIC to market. https://twitter.com/AltcoinXP/status/1177290387205054464 Kristy then blocked me on Twitter and told me to stop spreading misinformation. https://imgur.com/lWEAWbd So, now let's talk about the article I replied to her with, claiming that Canaan doesn't have enough funding for this. Granted, I said this without doing as much research as I could've, but let's see if what I said holds true. Here is the article I linked in the tweet. https://www.coindesk.com/avalon-bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-is-plotting-another-ipo-attempt Notice the date this article was published. March 27th 2019. Notice that Avalon announce their Bitcoin A10 miner the next day. https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160 Perhaps to help attract funding from new investors, which the Coindesk article says they haven't been able to bring on any new investors in a long time. I'm not going to cite the whole article here, read it for yourself, but it generally explains that Canaan is unable to attract new funding. Also, Xianfu Lui, a 17.2% shareholder in Canaan left the company in February, so I doubt he invested money into Canaan. https://www.coindesk.com/co-founder-quits-avalon-mining-chip-maker-canaan-over-differences Here are some more Coindesk articles speaking about Canaan trying to raise money. https://www.coindesk.com/huobi-plans-backdoor-ipo-attempt-in-hong-kong-document-suggests “After mining giant Bitmain’s IPO attempt in Hong Kong was allowed to expire, apparently due to reluctance from HKEX, it’s reportedly now planning to list in the U.S. Another miner manufacturer, Canaan Creative, is also reported to have already confidentially filed in the U.S. after a failed HKEX attempt. “ https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-confidentially-files-for-ipo-in-us-report https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-canaans-ipo-likely-delayed-after-hong-kong-filing-expires “The Reuters report, citing anonymous sources, further said the HKEX and financial regulators in Hong Kong have raised questions over Canaan’s business model, given the volatile nature of cryptocurrencies. As such, the news agency said the IPO might not go ahead this year, since there have been no updates from a listing hearing with the HKEX. “ So seems to be Caanan is having a hard time finding funding for their endeavors. Pretty much every single article on Coindesk about them is about them trying to get funding and failing at it. So do they have enough money to bring the V10 to market AND bring enough V10s to be a problem? They would need to produce 45,000 units to get 50% of the Ethereum mining power. Current network is 197TH/s https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/ Currently Bitmain is estimated to have produced less than 20,000 units since the Antminer E3's announcement in April 2018. https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/d8fuvj/an_argument_against_progpow_a_day_part_1/f1axc2c/ https://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-confirms-release-first-ever-ethereum-asic-miners Bitmain being a much larger company than Canaan, it seems unlikely they will produce 45,000 units quick enough to become a problem. Anyway, For those of you that don't know, Canaan manages the Avalon bitcoin ASICs and have done so since 2014. Canaan is fulling in charge of Avalon. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Avalon Maybe I should've said that sooner, I don't know. I'm just typing as I come up with stuff. But we can look at Avalon's bitcoin past to determine what the future ethereum miner supply might look like. Keep in mind though, this was also during a time when they were well-funded. I'm not sure what their bank account looks like now, but they have been in the red every year since their existance, so I have to assume they have less money now than when they were releasing bitcoin miners Avalon announce the A10 March 2019, and started shipping pre-orders in October 2019. If the V10 follows suit, we won't see a V10 in the hands of miners until April 2020 https://www.coindesk.com/demand-for-new-bitcoin-miners-is-again-outstripping-supply Ok, I'm done. That's all I put together and why I don't believe the Canaan ASIC that was announced is a concern warranting the immediate adoption of ProgPoW Thanks for reading.
Video card prices and cryptocurrency mining v.2: electric boogaloo
Six months ago, I put together a post on the impact of cryptocurrency mining on the prices of video cards. The hope was that supply would increase, demand would drop, and prices would return to normal. Unfortunately, prices are on the rise again. I've therefore updated and rewritten the original post to reflect a situation that affects a large number of the builders on /buildapc. So, you may have noticed a resurgence in discussion about the current hike in the price of video cards. Or you may have found the price of certain cards (especially, but not limited to, AMD's RX 570/580 and Nvidia's 1060/1070) higher than you expected. You know, I did. What's going on? In effect, cryptocurrency mining (the solving of complex mathematical problems that underlies the transactions for a given currency) continues to drive up demand for video cards, both new and used, as people invest in consumer hardware to get involved. Consequently, the availability of cards is low, and prices are high. With major retailer stock running low, it's hard to get an idea of the inflation at play. As a very general idea, here's a basic rundown of mid-tier recommended retail prices compared to current reseller prices on Amazon:
This again? Why now? Cryptocurrency prices are spiralling, and people are looking to mine whatever they can. Moreover, the nature of new cryptocurrencies encourages the purchase of consumer hardware: Bitcoin remains the largest of these currencies, but increasing concern about transaction speed and cost has recently led to a rise in alternatives. The most prominent of these is Ethereum. Ethereum is designed to be resistant to ASICs - chips designed specifically for cryptocurrency mining - which means that potential miners must stick to consumer video cards. What happens next? Anyone who can confidently predict the long term fortunes of the cryptocurrency market probably isn't browsing /buildapc threads on the prices of computer hardware. Still, eventually™ it is intended that Ethereum will switch from a proof of work (i.e. mining) to a proof of stake (based on possession of currency) system. Long story short, this will mean no more video card demand from Ethereum miners. Unfortunately, there is no fixed date for when the switch is due to occur. Not to mention that this says nothing of other coins that users may try to mine. What can I do in the meantime?
Video card prices and Cryptocurrency mining - what's going on?
In response to calls for a post addressing current GPU trends, this summary has been written up. It is neither exhaustive nor applicable in all regions, so be sure to research your own builds thoroughly. Recently, you may have noticed discussion surrounding the current hike in the price of video cards. Or you may have found the price of certain cards (e.g. AMD's RX 570/580 and Nvidia's 1060/1070) higher than you expected. So what's going on? A sharp increase in cryptocurrency mining (the solving of complex mathematical problems that underlies the transactions for a given currency) has driven up demand for video cards, both new and used, as people invest in consumer hardware to get involved. Consequently, availability of cards is low, and prices are high. As a very general idea, here's a basic rundown of recommended retail prices compared to current reseller prices on Amazon:
Why now? There are a number of different cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin remains the largest, but increasing concern about transaction speed and cost has recently led to a rise in alternatives. The most prominent of these is Ethereum. Ethereum is designed to be resistant to ASICs - chips designed specifically for cryptocurrency mining - which means that potential miners must stick to consumer video cards. What happens next? Eventually™, it is intended that Ethereum will switch from a proof of work (i.e. mining) to a proof of stake (based on possession of currency) system. Long story short, this will mean no more video card demand from Ethereum miners. Unfortunately, there is no fixed date for when the switch is due to occur. There are rumours of plans to introduce cards aimed at cryptocurrency miners, which may help to lower prices of mainstream cards. In the meantime:
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
Technical Cryptonight Discussion: What about low-latency RAM (RLDRAM 3, QDR-IV, or HMC) + ASICs?
The Cryptonight algorithm is described as ASIC resistant, in particular because of one feature:
A megabyte of internal memory is almost unacceptable for the modern ASICs.
EDIT: Each instance of Cryptonight requires 2MB of RAM. Therefore, any Cryptonight multi-processor is required to have 2MB per instance. Since CPUs are incredibly well loaded with RAM (ie: 32MB L3 on Threadripper, 16 L3 on Ryzen, and plenty of L2+L3 on Skylake Servers), it seems unlikely that ASICs would be able to compete well vs CPUs. In fact, a large number of people seem to be incredibly confident in Cryptonight's ASIC resistance. And indeed, anyone who knows how standard DDR4 works knows that DDR4 is unacceptable for Cryptonight. GDDR5 similarly doesn't look like a very good technology for Cryptonight, focusing on high-bandwidth instead of latency. Which suggests only an ASIC RAM would be able to handle the 2MB that Cryptonight uses. Solid argument, but it seems to be missing a critical point of analysis from my eyes. What about "exotic" RAM, like RLDRAM3 ?? Or even QDR-IV?
QDR-IV SRAM is absurdly expensive. However, its a good example of "exotic RAM" that is available on the marketplace. I'm focusing on it however because QDR-IV is really simple to describe. QDR-IV costs roughly $290 for 16Mbit x 18 bits. It is true Static-RAM. 18-bits are for 8-bits per byte + 1 parity bit, because QDR-IV is usually designed for high-speed routers. QDR-IV has none of the speed or latency issues with DDR4 RAM. There are no "banks", there are no "refreshes", there are no "obliterate the data as you load into sense amplifiers". There's no "auto-charge" as you load the data from the sense-amps back into the capacitors. Anything that could have caused latency issues is gone. QDR-IV is about as fast as you can get latency-wise. Every clock cycle, you specify an address, and QDR-IV will generate a response every clock cycle. In fact, QDR means "quad data rate" as the SRAM generates 2-reads and 2-writes per clock cycle. There is a slight amount of latency: 8-clock cycles for reads (7.5nanoseconds), and 5-clock cycles for writes (4.6nanoseconds). For those keeping track at home: AMD Zen's L3 cache has a latency of 40 clocks: aka 10nanoseconds at 4GHz Basically, QDR-IV BEATS the L3 latency of modern CPUs. And we haven't even begun to talk software or ASIC optimizations yet.
CPU inefficiencies for Cryptonight
Now, if that weren't bad enough... CPUs have a few problems with the Cryptonight algorithm.
AMD Zen and Intel Skylake CPUs transfer from L3 -> L2 -> L1 cache. Each of these transfers are in 64-byte chunks. Cryptonight only uses 16 of these bytes. This means that 75% of L3 cache bandwidth is wasted on 48-bytes that would never be used per inner-loop of Cryptonight. An ASIC would transfer only 16-bytes at a time, instantly increasing the RAM's speed by 4-fold.
AES-NI instructions on Ryzen / Threadripper can only be done one-per-core. This means a 16-core Threadripper can at most perform 16 AES encryptions per clock tick. An ASIC can perform as many as you'd like, up to the speed of the RAM.
CPUs waste a ton of energy: there's L1 and L2 caches which do NOTHING in Cryptonight. There are floating-point units, memory controllers, and more. An ASIC which strips things out to only the bare necessities (basically: AES for Cryptonight core) would be way more power efficient, even at ancient 65nm or 90nm designs.
QDR-IV and RLDRAM3 still have latency involved. Assuming 8-clocks of latency, the naive access pattern would be:
This isn't very efficient: the RAM sits around waiting. Even with "latency reduced" RAM, you can see that the RAM still isn't doing very much. In fact, this is why people thought Cryptonight was safe against ASICs. But what if we instead ran four instances in parallel? That way, there is always data flowing.
Cryptonight #1 Read
Cryptonight #2 Read
Cryptonight #3 Read
Cryptonight #4 Read
Cryptonight #1 Write
Cryptonight #2 Write
Cryptonight #3 Write
Cryptonight #4 Write
Cryptonight #1 Read #2
Cryptonight #2 Read #2
Cryptonight #3 Read #2
Cryptonight #4 Read #2
Cryptonight #1 Write #2
Cryptonight #2 Write #2
Cryptonight #3 Write #2
Cryptonight #4 Write #2
Notice: we're doing 4x the Cryptonight in the same amount of time. Now imagine if the stalls were COMPLETELY gone. DDR4 CANNOT do this. And that's why most people thought ASICs were impossible for Cryptonight. Unfortunately, RLDRAM3 and QDR-IV can accomplish this kind of pipelining. In fact, that's what they were designed for.
As good as QDR-IV RAM is, its way too expensive. RLDRAM3 is almost as fast, but is way more complicated to use and describe. Due to the lower cost of RLDRAM3 however, I'd assume any ASIC for CryptoNight would use RLDRAM3 instead of the simpler QDR-IV. RLDRAM3 32Mbit x36 bits costs $180 at quantities == 1, and would support up to 64-Parallel Cryptonight instances (In contrast, a $800 AMD 1950x Threadripper supports 16 at the best). Such a design would basically operate at the maximum speed of RLDRAM3. In the case of x36-bit bus and 2133MT/s, we're talking about 2133 / (Burst Length4 x 4 read/writes x 524288 inner loop) == 254 Full Cryptonight Hashes per Second. 254 Hashes per second sounds low, and it is. But we're talking about literally a two-chip design here. 1-chip for RAM, 1-chip for the ASIC/AES stuff. Such a design would consume no more than 5 Watts. If you were to replicate the ~5W design 60-times, you'd get 15240 Hash/second at 300 Watts.
Depending on cost calculations, going cheaper and "making more" might be a better idea. RLDRAM2 is widely available at only $32 per chip at 800 MT/s. Such a design would theoretically support 800 / 4x4x524288 == 95 Cryptonight Hashes per second. The scary part: The RLDRAM2 chip there only uses 1W of power. Together, you get 5 Watts again as a reasonable power-estimate. x60 would be 5700 Hashes/second at 300 Watts. Here's Micron's whitepaper on RLDRAM2: https://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/technical-note/dram/tn4902.pdf . RLDRAM3 is the same but denser, faster, and more power efficient.
Hybrid Cube Memory
Hybrid Cube Memory is "stacked RAM" designed for low latency. As far as I can tell, Hybrid Cube memory allows an insane amount of parallelism and pipelining. It'd be the future of an ASIC Cryptonight design. The existence of Hybrid Cube Memory is more about "Generation 2" or later. In effect, it demonstrates that future designs can be lower-power and give higher-speed.
The overall board design would be the ASIC, which would be a simple pipelined AES ASIC that talks with RLDRAM3 ($180) or RLDRAM2 ($30). Its hard for me to estimate an ASIC's cost without the right tools or design. But a multi-project wafer like MOSIS offers "cheap" access to 14nm and 22nm nodes. Rumor is that this is roughly $100k per run for ~40 dies, suitable for research-and-development. Mass production would require further investments, but mass production at the ~65nm node is rumored to be in the single-digit $$millions or maybe even just 6-figures or so. So realistically speaking: it'd take ~$10 Million investment + a talented engineer (or team of engineers) who are familiar with RLDRAM3, PCIe 3.0, ASIC design, AES, and Cryptonight to build an ASIC.
Current CPUs waste 75% of L3 bandwidth because they transfer 64-bytes per cache-line, but only use 16-bytes per inner-loop of CryptoNight.
Low-latency RAM exists for only $200 for ~128MB (aka: 64-parallel instances of 2MB Cryptonight). Such RAM has an estimated speed of 254 Hash/second (RLDRAM 3) or 95 Hash/second (Cheaper and older RLDRAM 2)
ASICs are therefore not going to be capital friendly: between the higher costs, the ASIC investment, and the literally millions of dollars needed for mass production, this would be a project that costs a lot more than a CPU per-unit per hash/sec.
HOWEVER, a Cryptonight ASIC seems possible. Furthermore, such a design would be grossly more power-efficient than any CPU. Though the capital investment is high, the rewards of mass-production and scalability are also high. Data-centers are power-limited, so any Cryptonight ASIC would be orders of magnitude lower-power than a CPU / GPU.
EDIT: Greater discussion throughout today has led me to napkin-math an FPGA + RLDRAM3 option. I estimated roughly ~$5000 (+/- 30%, its a very crude estimate) for a machine that performs ~3500 Hashes / second, on an unknown number of Watts (Maybe 75Watts?). $2000 FPGA, $2400 RLDRAM3, $600 on PCBs, misc chips, assembly, etc. etc. A more serious effort may use Hybrid Cube Memory to achieve much higher FPGA-based Hashrates. My current guess is that this is an overestimate on the cost, so -30% if you can achieve some bulk discounts + optimize the hypothetical design and manage to accomplish the design on cheaper hardware.
Bitmain is regarded as one of the most influential companies in the ASIC mining industry. It is estimated that they have manufactured approximately 53% of all mining equipment.Without including their mining profits, that’s around $140 million dollars in sales. These figures are staggering, but Bitmain’s monopoly of the Bitcoin ASIC market may come to an end, following the release of PowerAsic’s asicpower AP9-SHA256.
About the asicpower AP9-SHA256
Designed with brand new technology and boasting 94 TH/s per miner, the AP(-SHA256 is the most powerful and efficient Bitcoin miner to date.PowerAsic claims they spent $12 million dollars on research, development, and prototypes.PowerAsic also noted that their miners take advantage of ASICBOOST, an exploit of Bitcoin’s algorithm which improves mining efficiency by 20%.An unusual approach separate Powerasic’s miner to the other manufactures is the implementation of copper heat-sink claimed to have a superior thermal conductivity 69% better than aluminium. Don’t take their words for it but confirm the facts are correct on widely well known and published science documents as this one.The first batch of miners were announced and made available for order in August of 2019, with start scheduled for shipment in September, 2019. Powerasic claims that the machines are around 40 percent more productive than the most proficient ASIC on the market, Bitmain’s Antminer S17.According to PowerAsic, they started a mining project with the aim to bring much needed competition to the market…We want to ‘make SHA256 great again.Sitting at the hefty price of $2,795.00, the powerasic AP9-SHA256 is far from affordable for the average person. Fortunately, due to the newly born rivalry between Bitmain and Powerasic, the price will probably lower with time and competition.The power supply for this unit is included and integrated in the top-box also including the controler card as a one unit. You will also get standard power cable, network cable, manual and software in the packet. In comparison to the price of the Antminer S17 , the Powerasic AP9-Sha256 is a better value.
The integrated PSU 3300W has a inputVoltage 220V 50Hz 30A. There are 2 fan 40mm., 1 fan 60mm to keep it cool and the power cable 3 legs following CEE 7 standard.Professional mining hardware runs optimally at 220-240V, hence why mining farms step down their own electricity supply to 220-240V. Note that 220V current is only found outside of the US – American outlets are 110V by default. Unless you want to hire an electrician, this could cause some people trouble adapt to the eficient and recomended 220V power needed, still 110V will get the job done, but they are not ideal for optimum mining performance.
Thanks to the powerasic AP9-HA256’s new 7nm generation of ASIC chips, the AP9-SHA256 has become the most electrically-efficient miner on the market.Consuming merely 30.J/TB, or 2860W from the wall, the 16T is 30% more electrically-efficient than the Antminer S17.
Powerasic ’s new ASIC technology is impressive. When compared to its closest competitor, the Antminer S17, the powerasic AP9-HA256 is the clear winner. It hashes at 94 TH/s, as opposed to the S17’s 56 TH/s. Moreover, the the AP9-HA256 consumes 30J/GH, whereas the S17 consumes 39-45J/TB.The difference in power consumption is miniscule, but when it comes to large-scale mining, the the AP9-HA256’s edge will drastically increase the profitability of a mining operation. This ASIC is profitable not only for mining on a large scale, but for the individual miner as well.Take a look at the projected mining profitability of a single miner:Note that is appears profitable even with high electricity costs ($0.1 per KW/h). With $0.05 / KW/h it’s even more profitable:📷Each powerasic AP9-HA256 will generate about $6,009 per year (calculated with 1 BTC=$10,141.5). Mining profitability may vary. You can usethis free profitability calculator to determine your projected earnings.
Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?
There is been a lot of talk on Twitter that powerasic AP9-HA256 is a scam. It appears it is not, as many users are already claiming to have received their miners.Slush, the creator ot Slush Mining Pool and the TREZOR hardware wallet, claims on Twitter that he has seen units and knows people who have had their miners delivered:
Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?
When the first batch of Bitmain’s Antminer S17 ASICs reached the eager hands of miners, they were all the rage. The S17 was renowned as the most efficient ASIC miner on the market. Many used the S17 as the industry’s golden standard.Up until the launch of the powerasic AP9-HA256, it was the golden standard.But, now?Things have changed.Not only is the powerasic AP9-HA256 more powerful than its predecessor from Bitmain, but also more efficient, and therefore, more profitable.Ever since the announcement of the new ASIC, there was widespread speculation of its legitimacy – and rightly so.The Bitcoin community has been plagued with small, phony companies manipulating images of preexisting antminers as a ploy to hype up their fake products. Nevertheless, powerasic AP9-HA256 is taking things seriously, and their first batch of miners have lived up to expectations.The fact of the matter is, Bitmain’s most powerful and efficient antminer has been dethroned by the new reigning king of ASICs: The powerasic AP9-HA256.
Bitmain has dominated the ASIC market since its inception in 2013.There are a few other companies producing ASICs. However, before the creation of PowerAsics AP9-SHA256., Bitmain was the only company with a proven track record that sold efficient miners directly to the public.Powerasic AP9-HA256 has the potential to bring Bitmain’s monopoly to an end. Powerasic AP9-HA256 has a bright future ahead of them. Now that Bitmain has noteworthy competition, it will be interesting to see how it affects the market. The powerasic AP9-HA256 is the best option (for now) for anyone getting started with mining. Powerasic’s innovation should force other ASIC producers to innovate and force other companies to release new miners with better efficiency. So whether you’re buying a miner now or soon, you’re likely to benefit from the development of this new miner. For more, Visit Us: https://asicpower.net/product.php
The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response. dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage. Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun. Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal. Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue. dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues. Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction). Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs. decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page. decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here. Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s. F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1. Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).
Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target. Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.com – translated, also on asicminervalue) dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.
Changenow announced the option to buy DCR with fiat.
TokenPride: "We are seeking feedback on the general setup of our payment processor. We have tried to make it simple and user friendly. 10% of all purchases made in Decred will be donated to the Decred Development fund - and we will be releasing original Decred designs in the future".
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project). The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below. Arbitrade is now mining Decred.
Campus Party in Brasilia, Brazil. @girino, @Rhama and @matheusd talked about Decred. Matheus was interviewed by a TV channel. Check this quick report about the event, click "Show newer" to continue reading. (photos: 123)
Blockchain Summit in London, UK. This was not a full blown presence with stand but rather investigation of opportunities by @kyle and @Ani. The resulting detailed report is a good example of a document advising to stakeholders whether it is worth spending project funds.
Meetup in Berlin, Germany on July 18. @jz will give a talk and Q&A about Decred and chat with Ele from @oscoin about incentivizing developers. Hosted by BlueYard Capital.
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
Decred Assembly - Ep20 - Governance: Driving the Future (youtube) @cburniske and @traceagain discuss the importance of governance protocols being foundational and problems with delegated proof of stake
"I think that developers in the future are going to base their decision on where to build on the basis of governance and community. And so I look for good governance mechanisms and strong communities in blockchains." (@decredproject)
What is on-chain cryptocurrency governance? Is it plutocratic? by Richard Red (medium)
Apples to apples, Decred is 20x more expensive to attack than Bitcoin by Zubair Zia (medium)
What makes Decred different and better from other cryptocurrencies? (cxihub.com)
Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository. An update on our communication systems:
Matrix chat logs are nowviewable on the web with the exception of some channels that are not bridged. The new web logs means our chats are now fully public and indexed by search engines.
Slack had an outage on Jun 27 that disturbed communications for a few hours, discussions continued on Decred's bridged platforms.
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS. A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people. A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred. "Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance. "The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here. Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms. Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.
DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market. In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss. Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance". Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case. Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)
About This Issue
This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May. Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research. The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue. As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations. Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
Mining has tripled from a year ago, the chips added cost $300M+. Now the network uses at least 300MW of electricity continuously at a cost of $50M/year. This is about what a city of 200k Americans use.
tl;dr: Bitcoin network is running on at least 230k Antminer S9s, using 320MW (~$50M/year), with $345M worth of chips coming online in the past year. Someone check my napkin math, I was looking at hashrate charts and just started writing stuff. Antminer S9 is the most efficient and popular miner right now so I'm using their stats. I expect efficiency to improve marginally in the future but at a much reduced rate. $2,200 capital cost 13.5 TH/s 1400 W 104 J/TH Network hash rate is 3,155,225 TH/s. If we go with a conservative estimate of power consumption, lets assume the entire network is Antminer S9. This gives 232,000 Antminers, which would use 327MW, for a total consumption of 2,866,000,000 kWh/year. The scale is sort of crazy to think about, the network uses about 10% of the electricity generated by some of the worlds biggest hydroelectric plants. It's not insignificant, but it's going to have to grow a lot to be noticeable at the world scale. The average American uses 1,380 watts. So instead of running the bitcoin network, you could run a city that provides for 237k Americans. This means 1 bitcoin represents roughly the consumption of 1/89th of an American. Consumption is roughly the same order of magnitude as production, so lets just say that a bitcoin is 1/100th the output of the average American, including all children and unemployed people. So if you own 100 bitcoins you basically own the equivalent production of a human being, in that the bitcoin commands a certain fraction of continuous energy expenditure in the form of hashpower. After all what is human labor except for skilled energy expenditure? (Not totally serious about this, it's fun to abuse units.) Maybe the more interesting story is the real money expenses. Here things are a little bit more fuzzy because we don't know what it actually costs bitmain to make an S9. Regardless, we can assume that facility costs add a little, and use $2,200 as an estimate for capex necessary to get one operational. Hash rate has tripled since a year ago. This means at minimum, 157k S9s have come online in the past year. Using $2,200, this is capex of $345M. (Important to note, part of bitcoin's security is that these chips are specific purpose SHA256(SHA256()), so this capex can't just flee to mining ethereum or something, it's in bitcoin for the long haul.) The electricity costs are also pretty fuzzy, in America it's ~$0.12/kWh on average, in China it can be $0. If you use American retail average, this is another $340M a year (this is ridiculous, don't quote me on this, no miners are using PG&E). If you take a conservative estimate of $0.02kWh, you still get $57M. I don't know how to estimate the cooling costs, maybe someone can just let me know if it's significant relative to the chip usage. If it's 1% of what the chips use then meh, but if it's 2x what the chips use then I'll put more effort into estimating it. Hopefully this gives you some ammunition for the next time someone asserts that bitcoin is ethereal or can vanish like tulips. Tulips don't run on hundreds of thousands of computers in datacenters around the world using the electricity of a small country.
[Very long, very serious] Development summary week ending 18th April 2014
When I got my first full time job, I used to try implementing requests from everyone as they came in, and for a while people really loved that I listened to their requests. Over time, however, things started to go wrong. I’d apply a change someone asked for, and in doing so would break something elsewhere in the code, in some subtle way that was missed in short-term testing. I’d fix that second bug and reveal a third. I’d fix that just in time for a new request to come in, and the process repeat. This led to the term “Bug whack-a-mole”, wherein I was spending time mostly fixing bugs introduced to live systems through rushing through earlier bug fixes. So this week, we’ve had a lot of people asking about changes to proof-of-work, especially X11, or even moving to proof of stake, primarily in an attempt to address risk of a 51% attack. A 51% attack is where one actor (person, group, organisation, whatever) gains control of enough resources to be able to create their own blockchain, isolated from the main blockchain, at a rate at least as quickly as the main blockchain is being created. They can then spend Dogecoins on the main blockchain, before releasing their fake blockchain; if their fake blockchain is longer than the existing blockchain, nodes will switch to the new blockchain (as they would when repairing a fork), and essentially the spent Dogecoin on the main blockchain are reversed and can be spent again. This is mostly of consequence to exchanges and payment processors (such as Moolah), who are most likely to end up holding the loss from the double-spend. The concern about a 51% attack stems from a couple of weeks ago now, when Wafflepool was around 50% of the network hashrate (mining power). It’s still high (at the time of wring about 32GH/s out of almost 74GH/s, or about 43%), but it is diminishing as a proportion. Lets talk about proof of stake first, as this one’s simpler. Proof of stake has been suggested as a way of avoiding the risk of Wafflepool having control of too many mining resources by itself, by changing from securing the blockchain through computational resources (work), to using number of Dogecoin held. The theory is that those with most Dogecoins have most to lose, and will act in their own interests. Major examples of proof of stake coins include Peercoin, Mintcoin and more recently Blackcoin. However, this essentially means we take control from Wafflepool, and hand it to Cryptsy (who are considered most likely to be the holder of some of the huge Dogecoin wallets out there). I by no means expect either organisation to attempt a 51% attack, but hopefully it’s clear that simply switching risks isn’t actually improving things. I’ve also had significant concerns raised from the merchant/payment processor community about potential impact of proof of stake, and that it may encourage hoarding (as coins are awarded for holding coins, rather than for mining). The price instability of Mintcoin and Blackcoin (and that Peercoin appears to only avoid this through very high transaction fees to keep the entire network inert) does not encourage confidence, either. For now, proof of stake remains something we’re keeping in mind, primarily in case price does not react as anticipated to mining reward decreases over time, but certainly we’re not eager to rush into such a change. Before I get into a discussion on proof of work, let me summarise this quickly; right now, uncertainty about changes is holding back our community from adopting ASICs. It’s high risk to spend hundreds, thousands or in some cases significantly more on ASIC hardware which could be left useless if we move. Those who have already purchased ASICs to support the Dogecoin hashrate would most likely have to mine Litecoin to recover sunk costs, if we did move. ASICs are virtually inevitable, and in our assessment we are better off pushing for rapid adoption, rather than expending resources delaying a problem which will re-occur later. At the time of writing the development team has no plans to change proof of work algorithm outside of the eventuality of a major security break to Scrypt. We are focusing on mitigation approaches in case of a 51% attack, and adoption of the coin as the most sustainable approaches to dealing with this risk. The X11 algorithm has been proposed as an alternative proof of work algorithm. X11, for those unaware, was introduced with Darkcoin. It’s a combination of 11 different SHA-3 candidate algorithms, using multiple rounds of hashing. The main advantage championed for Darkcoin is that current implementations run cooler on GPU hardware. Beyond that, there’s a lot of confusion over what it does and does not do. As I’m neither an algorithms or electronics specialist, I recruited a colleague who previously worked on the CERN computing grid to assist, and the following is primarily his analysis. A full technical report is coming for anyone who really likes detail, this is just a summary: A lot of people presume X11 is ASIC resistant; it’s not. Candidate algorithms for SHA-3 were assessed on a number of criteria, including simplicity to implement in hardware. All 11 algorithms have been implemented in FPGA hardware, and several in ASIC hardware already. The use of multiple algorithms does significantly complicate ASIC development, as it means the resulting chip would likely be extremely large. This has consequences for production, as the area of a chip is the main determining factor for likelihood of an error in the chip. The short version being that while yes it would take significant resources to make an efficient ASIC for X11, for a long time Scrypt was considered infeasible to adapt to ASICs. As stated earlier, any move would most likely be nothing more than an extremely expensive and risky delaying manoeuvre. ASIC efficiency would also depend heavily on ability to optimise the combination of the algorithms; a naive implementation would run at around the rate of the slowest hashing algorithm, however if any common elements could be found amongst the algorithms, it may be that this could be improved upon significantly There are also significant areas of concern with regards to X11. The “thermal efficiency” is most likely a result of the algorithm being a poor fit for GPU hardware. This means that GPU mining is closer to CPU mining (the X11 Wiki article suggests a ratio of 3:1 for GPU/CPU mining performance), however it also means that if a way of was found to improve performance there could be significantly faster software miners, leading to an ASIC-like edge without any of the hardware development costs. The component algorithms are all relatively new, and several were rejected during the SHA-3 competition for security concerns (see http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round2/documents/Round2_Report_NISTIR_7764.pdf for full details). Security criteria for SHA-3 algorithms was also focused on ability to generate collisions, rather than on producing hashes with specific criteria (such as number of leading 0s, which is how proof of work is usually assessed). X11 is a fascinating algorithm for new coins, however I would consider it exceptionally high risk for any existing coin to adopt. Beyond algorithm analysis, this week has been mostly about testing 1.7. Last weekend Patrick raised the issue that we had been incorrectly running the automated tests, which had led to several automated test failures being missed earlier. This led to other tasks being dropped as we quickly reworked the tests to match Dogecoin parameters instead of Bitcoin. So far, all tests have passed successfully once updated to match Dogecoin, however this work continues. On the bright side, it turns out we have a lot more automated tests than we realised, which is very useful for later development. The source code repository for Dogecoin now also uses Travis CI, which sanity-checks patches submitted to the project, to help us catch any potential problems earlier, thanks to Tazz for leading the charge on that. This is particularly important as of course we’re developing on different platforms (Windows, OS X, Linux) and what works on one, may not work on others. Over time, this should be a significant time saver for the developers. For anyone wanting to help push Dogecoin forward, right now the most productive thing to be doing is testing either Dogecoin, or helping Bitcoin Core test pull requests. Feel free to drop by our Freenode channel for guidance on getting started with either. Right now, I’m working on the full technical report on X11, and will then be back working on the payment protocol for Dogecoin. I’ve approached a few virus scanning software companies about offering their products for Dogecoin, with so far no response, but will update you all if I hear more. Lastly, the next halvening (mining reward halving) is currently expected late on the 27th or early on the 28th, both times GMT. Given that it was initially expected on the 25th, we’re obviously seeing some slippage in estimates, and a total off the top of my head guess would be that we’ll see it around 0500 GMT on the 28th at this rate. I have taken the 28th off from the day job, and will be around both before and after in case of any problems (love you guys, not getting up at 5am to check on the blockchain, though!)
Here is some important information to help educate you on the Bytom Blockchain
With the magical influx of new readers, I would like to warmly welcome everyone to BytomBlockchain. Please protect this community's philosophy by respecting our rules：
No inappropriate behaviour. This includes, but is not limited to: personal attacks, threats of violence, slurs of any kind, posting people's private information.
No misleading titles.
No duplicated questions that are addressed in FAQ. If the current answer to the FAQ lacks details, use the comment function to ask more specific.
English language only.
Our goal is to keep a good information / noise ratio at BytomBlockchain and we therefore ask for your understanding if we delete submissions violating any of the rules outlined above.
Bytom is an interactive protocol of multiple byte assets. Heterogeneous byte-assets (indigenous digital currency, digital assets) that operate in different forms on the Bytom Blockchain and atomic assets (warrants, securities, dividends, bonds, intelligence information, forecasting information and other information that exist in the physical world) can be registered, exchanged, gambled and engaged in other more complicated and contract-based interoperations via Bytom.
The world today has been massively influenced by the information revolution of the last few years. More and more elements of the physical world are getting transmitted into the digital world. With the rising relevance of big data, computing power plays a more central role in technological advancement. First came the tools that allowed us to work via digital platforms, such as email and software. Then came currencies that allowed peer-to-peer transfer of value over the digital world, such as Bitcoin. The next phase in consideration is a system where every valuable thing (that can be exchanged) is migrated to the digital world. Examples of things like that include equities, securitized assets, dividends, bonds, and so on. Bytom is a protocol and a blockchain for the exchange and interaction of real-world assets. Bytom is different from Ethereum, as it focuses on putting real-world assets on its blockchain. Specifically, Bytom focuses on avoiding the replication of real-world assets on the blockchain, resolving compliance issues as digital assets are linked to physical assets, and bridging the gap between the physical world and the digital world.
What Does Bytom Do?
Bytom is basically a digital asset layer protocol. It enables individuals and institutions to build financial and digital asset applications. Stocks, bonds, and any kind of secure data can also be exchanged on the blockchain. Bytom aims to map assets in the physical world to the digital world and create an ecosystem where there is interoperability between these 2 forms. There are 3 types of assets on the Bytom blockchain that can be exchanged:
Income assets, which include non-performing assets, fixed local government investments, home-stay properties, etc.
Equity assets, which include equity of non-listed companies, equity of private funds, etc. Transferring equity assets requires qualified investor verification.
Securitized assets, which includes debts, automobile loans, etc. Generally, these are assets that can generate predictable cash flows.
These assets are tradable on-chain with the Bytom protocol. Bytom cuts out the middlemen in asset transfers and recordkeeping, which leads to faster transactions and lower costs. Also, the assets are more secure on a blockchain than with a third-party organization. Users can create their asset-backed security on the Bytom blockchain by registering and tokenizing their assets via smart contract. Bytom can also function as a platform for fundraising or ICOs.
Bytom’s Consensus Model
Bytom uses a Proof-of-Work consensus model, the mechanism currently used by Bitcoin and Ethereum. It is important that the blockchain is not vulnerable to the Sybil attack and the 51% attack. This is because Bytom deals with assets. To be realistic with the demands of the blockchain system, it prioritizes decentralization and security over performance. Bytom’s consensus mechanism is designed to be “friendly to AI ASIC chips,” as described in the whitepaper. This means that the miners can be used for AI hardware acceleration services. Bytom implements cross-chain asset transactions and dividend distribution via side-chain. It also has a quasi SegWit design.
History of Bytom
Started in January 2017, Bytom was founded by Chang Jia (former sci-fi writer and creator of 8btc) and Duan Xinxing (former Vice President of OKCoin). The Bytom token sale took place from June 20 to July 20, 2017, and raised 8,400 Bitcoins. 30% of the total supply was distributed during ICO. 20% was reserved for the Bytom Foundation, 7% for private equity investors, 10% for business development, and 33% for mining.
The Bytom Team
The Bytom team is headed by its founders, Chang Jia, and Duan Xinxing. Duan functions as the CEO of Bytom. The CTO is Lang Yu (former senior systems engineer for Alipay). The COO is Qu Zhaoxiang and the CFO, Li Zongcheng. The team further consists of developers and managers committed to the mission of Bytom. The Bytom Foundation is based in Singapore, where the government favors blockchain developments and the environment enables growth in the ecosystem.
Bytom Roadmap and Achievements
The Bytom mainnet was officially launched on April 24, 2018. The token swap of the ERC-20 Bytom tokens for the native Bytom coins took place in June 2018 across several exchanges. As indicated on their roadmap, Bytom then released smart contract functionality on their platform on July 26, 2018. Their roadmap can be seen below. roadmap Bytom is taking steps to bring its vision to life through partnerships. A notable partnership so far is with East Lake Big Data Asset Exchange, an organization committed to providing big data solutions for Chinese government agencies. The organization collaborates with Bytom in the area of blockchain innovation and data assets trading.
The Bytom Token (BTM)
The Bytom blockchain has a native token known as BTM. The main uses of BTM are as a transaction fee for asset trading, dividends for income assets, and deposits for asset issuance. The maximum number of Bytom tokens is 2.1 billion. Currently, over 1 billion BTM coins are already in circulation. The current price of Bytom is close to US$0.20. Bytom coins can be bought with other cryptocurrencies on several exchanges, such as RightBTC, Huobi, OKEx, KuCoin, and Bibox. BTM coins can be stored in Bytom’s official wallet. This wallet is available for download on Windows, Linux, and macOS.
Bytom creates the opportunity to move real-world assets into the digital world. This interoperability will open both blockchain and the tech world as a whole to more innovative ideas that will move civilization forward. One standout feature of Bytom is that the team has hit the milestones set out on their roadmap. The problem Bytom seeks to solve will be a necessity in a few years, if the world continues with this heavy trend of decentralization. However, it is still too early to determine how successful Bytom is going to be.
Of Wolves and Weasels - Day 360 - Special Edition: On Paycoin / Shibe Saturday #3
Hey all, GoodShibe here! Today is Shibe Saturday! However I feel that today's regularly scheduled Shibe Saturday post needs to be set aside for a bit of a breakdown on the current Paycoin situation that's unfolding. If you're here for Shibe Saturday, please pop to the end of this post for a list of all the fantastic merchants that we have available to us plus you can use our new Dogecoin Prize List (beta) to help you figure out what you can buy with the DOGE that you have! :D) On Paycoin: One of the good things about having experience is the ability to recognize patterns as they emerge. The more experience you have, the quicker you tend to notice when things are going sideways before they go sideways. Quiet signs that others might not yet notice will ping off of your peripheral. Red flags go up quicker. Sometimes you end up being wrong, sure. But the thing is that at the end of the day, you're paying attention. You're watching. You're ready. As the FoundeCreator of the Dogecoin Defense Force (/DogecoinDefenseForce) I used to see all sorts of people buying GAW-brand miners and such. Heck, GAW had quite a bit of good standing across multiple crypto-communities back in the day when they used to sell actual physical miners that would rest in your home. Here's an article from back when GAW partnered with Zeus back in May-ish of last year. Zeus Miners Hosting Deal With GAWMiners Brings A New Manufacturer To The World Market But here's the thing: You're creating a machine that literally prints money. And once you realize that, well... First came the multiple waves of 'better' and 'better' miners. They'd sell one generation of miners then start selling the next gen within months, while selling the 'last' gen at deep discounts. The newer machines with easier access to hashpower were pushing up the difficulty, making it harder for those who'd had the earlier generations to make even a fraction of their money back. People who'd just bought the 'last' gen, months earlier, found themselves in an arms race to keep up. And the star started to fall. Then came the idea of 'hosted miners'. You could buy the physical miner, they would hold it for you, pay the electricity and you'd get the coins (for a small fee). At first you could actually write to them and get them to send you the miner, if you wanted. Then you couldn't. You were also stuck mining wherever they wanted to mine. If you wanted to mine some other altcoin or whatnot, tough luck. You got the coins they gave you and then you had to swap them out for the coin you wanted. Then came 'Hashlets'. You bought a tiny slice of the pie. Pay X number of dollars, get X number of 'Hashlets'... only there was no actual physical 'end' to the number of Hashlets that there could be. So if you'd gone crazy and bought a share equal to 1% of the total number of available Hashlets, over time, as they added more power, etc to the network, your 'share' decreased. Add in a 'maintenance fee' that just happened to end up soaking up whatever little money you were actually making, and, well, you come to the harsh realization that you've just paid them to build a mining network off of your back. Sure, you still 'owned' the hashlets, but only in name. You'd never, ever see any money from them. Heck, you can't even buy physical miners from them anymore (outside of one bitcoin Rocketbox and used bundles of incredibly outdated Gridseeds). Now it's just all-Hashlets, all the time. And why wouldn't they? Selling virtual, always shrinking, slices of a server farm is way, way more profitable for them than selling hardware. But is it profitable for you? Feel free to ask around, to talk to any number of the home-based miners who've been burned over the last year. So, then comes talk of Hashcoin... then Paycoin and all these pie-in-the-sky claims. I can go into detail but this /Bitcoin post sums it all up rather nicely: GAW Miners - Liars, Frauds - A brief recap of what we know. And all along the way, people who know have been trying to say 'stay away' and 'be careful' - because these aren't the actions of a company with your best interests at heart. So, what's different about Paycoin, why do people seem so much more 'up at arms' than they were before? Because people appear to be buying in, en masse... and they appear to be getting hurt already. Claims of users being banned just for asking pointed questions and claims of lack of transparency and frustration from those who bought in based on promises that Josh had made. What's worse, it seems like those who are actively defending Paycoin are acting like this thing is all being overblown. And maybe it would be... if not for all of the shady stuff in the past that I'd just listed (let alone all the stuff I'm sure I'm forgetting). At the end of the day, coins like Paycoin damage the entire credibility of the Crypto-sphere and help re-enforce negative views of all cryptocurrencies. The people burned here, in this fire, will not be coming back - moreso, they will be out there telling everyone they know to stay away from all cryptos. This is another reason why so many Crypto-communities are standing together. They've seen this coming, they've warned people away -- and now that this thing seems to be catching fire and blowing up, they're trying to protect others from hopping into the flames with those already engulfed. It's sad to say but the history here, all the things that came before Paycoin, has lead me to believe that what we're seeing is a company run amok, high on waves of endless greed - and, unfortunately, a whole lot of pissed off/frightened/angry investors who are caught in the middle. Stay safe out there, my friends! Shibe Saturday! Only have a bit of Dogecoin? Use our Dogecoin Prize List (Beta) to figure out what you can buy with the DOGEs that you have! Great businesses to spend your Dogecoins on this Shibe Saturday!
Coinplay.io sells Steam keys for cool Indie videogames for Dogecoin!
Dogetunes.net offers a vast array of Music for sale by Shibes for Dogecoin!
We also have the 'Hire a Shibe' wiki! (Shibes hiring Shibes to work for Dogecoin!) and Dogerr.com which also allows Shibes to post their skills/abilities and get paid in Dogecoin! It's 8:55AM EST and we've found 97.25% of our first 100 Billion DOGEs -- only 2.75% remains until we hit our soft cap! Our Global Hashrate is up slightly from ~1270 to ~1280 Gigahashes per second and our Difficulty is down slightly from ~20232 to ~19363. As always, I appreciate your support! GoodShibe
The computing power of the company has long been in the Ghash pool.io. At the beginning of June 2014, the capacity of the pool, in which the share of Bitfury ASIC chips was about 45%, for some time exceeded 51% of the total computing power of the entire bitcoin network, which made "double spending" possible. ASIC vs CPU mining . An ASIC Bitcoin miner is designed exclusively for the purpose of mining bitcoin. Though significantly more expensive to purchase, they are far more powerful (higher hash rate) and electricity-efficient than CPUs and GPUs (graphics cards) – used for mining in the early days of bitcoin – and even FPGAs (field programmable gate arrays), which were, in 2011, the most ... The first commercial Bitcoin mining products included chips that were reprogrammed for mining Bitcoin. These chips were faster but still power-hungry. ASIC, or application specific integrated circuit, chips are designed specifically for Bitcoin mining. ASIC technology has made Bitcoin mining even faster while using less power. As the popularity of Bitcoin increases, more miners join the ... Bitcoin Mining verbraucht viel Strom. Bei hohen Stromkosten lohnt sich das Mining oftmals nicht. Um Bitcoin Mining zu betreiben, müssen Sie einem Miningpool beitreten, was zusätzliche Kosten verursacht. Für das Mining benötigen Sie entsprechende Hardware. Auch hier kommen Kosten auf Sie zu. Je nachdem, wie leistungsfähig Ihr Bitcoin Miner sein soll, zahlen Sie bis zu 2.000 Euro. Es ist ... Jeder Antminer S9 verfügt über 189 Chips, die im Vergleich zu allen anderen Bitcoin-Bergarbeitern zu mehr Hashleistung und Effizienz führen. Antminer S9 Rentabilität [ Bearbeiten ] Die Metriken für Bergbaumaschinen werden basierend auf einer Netzwerk-Hash-Rate von 30.830.816.384 GH/s und einem BTC-USD-Wechselkurs von 1 BTC=7492,55 USD berechnet.
Bitcoin Mining in Data Center With ASIC Technology
This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue New 7nm technology ASIC chips to be integrated in BITCOIN miners. bitcoin miner circuit chips recycling. As Bitcoin Mining increases in popularity and the Bitcoin price rises so does the value of ASIC Bitcoin mining hardware. As more Bitcoin mining hardware is ... A minute or so into the video I jump back to the laptop to adjust the frequency to 537. I know the asic chips are mining if they light up red or if they start putting off a stupid amount of heat ... Both of these 2019 new bitcoin and bitcoin cash miners will be using the newest and most efficient 7nm chip the BM1397 7nm ASIC bitcoin mining hardware. "Bitmain Technologies Limited, today ...