Bitcoin Mining: A Thermal Perspective Electronic Design

ELI5 CNC Parts (Computer/Digital?)

I have access to a 6'x10' gantry CNC with a 4.5kW spindle and I'm totally lost on the parts of a CNC machine/I have a super shallow knowledge base about machine in general. My totally wrong look on CNC parts with circuit boards:
- Why can't i get a PC with the latest most powerful CPU to control the whole machine? Why do i need 4 big thingies (drivers) to control how the machine move in xyz, what are drivers and why are they so big that they need to be installed on a big pcb and have their own air cooling(i guess the big pcb includes the CNC's main control panel too)?
- What's the advantage of a stand alone control panel with it's own OS for a CNC machine? How is it better than a pc that can install any program to control the machine and update frequently?
- Are the controls of a CNC machine very complex? Why dont they make 'add-ons' that can be inserted into pcie slot of a pc and make use of its cpu's processing power that's much more powerful and cheaper than specialized pcb? I know specialized pcb/processors are made to run more efficiently/faster on specific tasks, but are CNC operations as complex as bitcoin mining or server os that need their own pcb?
-I heard some horror story that CNC machine's that uses a pc as control panel could get nasty viruses and brick the whole mechanical thing and it's other digital parts, which doesn't make much sense, i could just get a new pc n plug in with newly installed control software and the mechanical parts should work. Is there truth to it?
- I guess my general feeling is that PC parts are much more accessible and cheaper
Thanks in advance for any answer and your patience for reading my stupid questions!
submitted by Suspicious-Desk-618 to CNC [link] [comments]

Wallet.dat recovery from stuck hard drive, can I trust data recovery services?

Hey /Bitcoin
An old hard drive of mine stopped spinning, I can hear it trying to start but failing to get enough power trough the motor, or so I think. I have reasons to believe there is a wallet.dat on this drive, somewhere.
Since just swapping the PCB of the hard disk probably won't work, I'll probably have to contact a data recovery expert.
What are your thoughts on letting a specialised company recover a wallet.dat?
I fear the technician could just keep the wallet.dat file for himself and tell me he didn't find anything. Even if I make him sign a contract or something, it's very easy for him to just withold the wallet.dat from me, without leaving any proof.

EDIT: No, I don't even have the public key of the wallet I believe is on the drive. With a public key, it would be easily provable the data recovery company stole the coins if they get moved within the time frame of the data recovery.
submitted by GentCoiners to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BUTTERFLY LABS BUTT BOY BAND BACK: THE STORY BEHIND SCAMMBR

BUTTERFLY LABS BUTT BOY BAND BACK: THE STORY BEHIND SCAMMBR
They say birds of a feather flock together and apparently that now includes butterflies. I recently came across a new crypto/hardware company, AMMBR, doing an ICO that contains at least 7 former members of the infamous Butterfly Labs company in varying capacities.
Interestingly enough, my curiosity was peaked piqued as a family member who was involved with BFL mentioned this project on Facebook and I automatically knew there had to be a connection to BFL because that family member knows practically nothing about cryptocurrency. Unfortunately, it seems he has not learned from his mistakes and is still participating in shady, possibly illicit activities, along with many of his former butts!
I’m now going to connect the dots for you to the people associated with SCAMMBR to show beyond a reasonable doubt that they are a quasi-reincarnation of BFL.
If you go to their website, www.ammbr.com, you can see their team members. Here are some of note:
1.) FORMER BFL Chief Technology Officer: Nasser Ghoseiri
Nasser was the Iranian living in France and one of the three named defendants in the case brought against BFL by the FTC which BFL lost.
BFL CONNECTION:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2014/09/ftcs-request-court-halts-bogus-bitcoin-mining-operation
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Senior IT Consultant
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nasser-ghoseiri-940419a/
2.) FORMER BFL VP of Marketing: Jeff Ownby
Jeff is the infamous character who pulled the trick of buying Buttcoin.org surreptitiously and then chanigng the negative articles to positive. Jeff isn’t listed on the official site, but he’s always worked behind the scenes from my experience as he was never listed as a BFL employee either. While he doesn’t list BFL on his LinkedIn profile, it’s fairly obvious when you read his experience at ForceStream.
BFL CONNECTION:
https://www.coindesk.com/buterfly-labs-accused-buying-blog-hide-negative-search-results
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: VP of Marketing
https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeffownby/
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/ammbrtech#section-board-members-and-advisors
3.) FORMER BFL Marketing Manager: Jurie Pieterse
Jurie is Jeff’s right-hand man and took over my position after it changed hands once since I left. Wherever Jeff goes, Jurie seems to follow, even on one of their new ventures: https://coinclaim.io/team
BFL CONNECTION:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=150803.7895
(ALSO NAMED IN COURT DOCUMENTS FROM FTC CASE TRANSCRIPTS)
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Chief Marketing Officer
https://www.linkedin.com/in/juriepieterse/
4.) FORMER BFL PRODUCT DESIGN CONSULTANT: Jason Aspinall
Jason was brought in at BFL when the redesign of the BitForce series needed to be done due to heat issues and for a variety of other design issues.
BFL CONNECTION:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1306470/gov-uscourts-mowd-117531-42-7.txt
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Electro-Mechanical Design & Testing Engineer
https://www.linkedin.com/in/chilled/
5.) FORMER BFL PCB DESIGNEMANUFACTURER: Ankur Patel
BFL used Ankur Patel and his company PCB Overnight for their boards in the miners. These boards suffered numerous problems and could not be produced in the quantity needed.
BFL CONNECTION:
http://www.ftclaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FTCButterflyDissolveTRO.pdf
SCAMMBR CONNECTION: Head of PROCUREMENT
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankur-patel-21552921/

Guess who else is on the team? After checking out their team page, I saw a photo with a few familiar faces. Wanna know who they are?
SCAMMBR TEAM
NOTABLE FIGURES IN PIC:
1.) Third from the left is The Infamous Josh Zerlan, aka Inaba, aka u/NitroWolf, aka BagO’Dicks, former VP of Product Dev at BFL, and now apparently consulting or a part of SCAMMBR according to the “Projects” section of his LinkedIn profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josh-zerlan-a4140478/
2.) Four spots to the right of Josh is The Infamous Dave “The Knife” Mcclain, aka "THE MOLE", former BFL Account Manager, who seems to be a part of it as well as he is pictured on their website with their team in a photo which also includes Josh. Not sure what he does there as he has little understanding of cryptocurrency or just about any technical development since the VCR.

BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
SCAMMBR was originally founded in 2017.
(SOURCE: https://tokenmarket.net/blockchain/blockchain/assets/ammb)
(SOURCE: https://www.coinopsy.com/dead-coins/ammb)
However it had two main issues which found itself on the dead coin list until it was recently resurrected, one being lack of interest/exchange listings and the other being a major security vulnerability in the smart contract, and the third being that anything BFL touches turns to shit.
ISSUE ONE: According to the Coinopsy link above, among other interesting reasons, they proclaimed that: “Ammbr was founded in 2017 and is not trading on any exchanges. Was added to the dead coins list due to the fact they did not reach any exchanges after one year and they canceled the ICO.”

ISSUE TWO:THE SCAMMBR SMART CONTRACT BUG:
(SOURCE: https://medium.com/coinmonks/an-inspection-on-ammbr-amr-bug-a53b4050d52)
While this bug affected many ERC-20 contracts, on July 8th, 2018, “John Wick Security Lab revealed highly risky transactions in AMMBR(AMR) contract. It contains an integer overflow bug that could be made use of by hackers calling batchTransfer(), resulting in transferring out tokens without limits.”
This can be seen in this tweet by SCAMMBR where they had to change the smart contract:
https://twitter.com/ammbrplatform/status/1011124298868776960?lang=en

WE'RE NOT DONE YET! SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST!
After doing further research on the SCAMMBR website, because nothing BFL is involved with is ever like it seems, I found some suspect/fake/front companies and astroturfing.
AMMBRPlatform
By all accounts, that sub is highly suspected of astroturfing by shills, employees and their families. Very few posts concern the actual project and the mods are mostly absent. All of the posts repeat the same lines or hashtags, but no comments. Mod u/Jory- doesn't post much in cryptocurrency subs, while u/AMMBRPlatform has never posted.
https://snoopsnoo.comJory-

BLACKBIRD WALLET IS THE BFL BITSAFE:
This is one of my favorite finds as it didn't occur to me until after doing most of my research, but then it clicked suddenly that I knew the design.
BITCOINTALK: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4685822.msg%msg_id%
SCAMMBRTECH posted on Bitcointalk on 7/16/18 regarding a new mobile wallet that has yet to come to market, the Blackbird Hardware Wallet. I had never heard of it and apparently, they wanted $299 for it from their shop. Which is...ridiculous. But let's compare the Blackbird Wallet to the BFL Bitsafe that was never released:
PHOTO FROM BLACKBIRD WALLET WEBSITE:
SOURCE: https://blackbirdwallet.io/
https://imgur.com/a/QxGMcPX
PHOTO OF BFL BITSAFE THAT WAS NEVER RELEASED FROM BFL WEBSITE:
SOURCE: https://web.archive.org/web/20160405172202/http://www.butterflylabs.com/bitcoin-hardware-wallet/
https://imgur.com/a/CsVXDbZ
So there you have it folks. Fuck these guys. I spent way to much time on this shit.
submitted by techknowledgy to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Debunking myths about mining and GPUs

E: Going to bed, will contribute more tomorrow. Thanks for the discussion!
Myth: Mining is more stressful than gaming. Fact: It depends. During the old days, this was plausible, because older GPUs (Pre-polaris) are/were bottlenecked by core clock when mining the most profitable coins. Thus, miners overclocked and overvolted these cards quite frequently, especially with cheap electricity. This meant that those cards were often run hot, pushing the limits and stressing VRM and fans quite a lot. Nowadays, ethash (Ethereum) is the most profitable algorithm for AMD cards 99% of the time, and newer GPUs (Polaris) are limited by memory bandwidth and latency. Miners can underclock core to the low 1100MHz range before seeing performance drop. To save power, miners who know what they are doing also undervolt, since it is no longer necessary to sustain a high core clock. Thus, it is quite feasible to run polaris cards below 70C at a reasonable fan speed. However, dual mining (mining more than one coin at once) does increase power consumption by up to 20%, and there are also idiots who run their polaris cards OCd while mining. With the exception of a few idiots, miners treat their Polaris GPUs pretty much the same; that is, running underclocked and undervolted 24/7 with a memory strap mod and mem OC. On the other hand, former gaming cards are highly variable in use cases. Some gamers leave their cards at stock settings, some undervolt, and some OC and/or overvolt. Most of the time, these cards are thermal cycled far more often than mining cards, which is known to weaken solder. Another thing to consider is that manufacturers have learned (somewhat) from their mistakes of putting shit tier fans in GPUs, and many fans on modern GPUs are ball bearing and/or swappable. Even some budget cards, such as MSI Armor, use decent ball bearing fans. Bottom line: the risk of buying mined Polaris cards is not as high as the risk of buying older mined cards. I would not be against buying mined polaris cards, but it's not necessarily better than buying a gamer's card instead. At the end of the day, it depends more on how the owner treated it than what they used it for.
Myth: GPUs are obsolete because of FPGAs and ASICs Fact: Mostly false. Older algorithms such as scrypt and SHA256 (lite/doge/feathebitcoin etc) are no longer feasible to mine with GPUs, but there have been multiple algorithms since then that are built to deter ASICs; most of the time it is done by making it memory-hard because designing an ASIC with high memory throughput is considerably more expensive to design and manufacture. Many devs prefer their blockchain to be ASIC resistant to avoid the concentration of power problem that Bitcoin is having nowadays, where a giant, near-monopolistic ASIC manufacturer (Bitmain) is causing a lot of (subjective) controversy. Blockchains based on ethash (Ethereum and its forks), equihash (Zcash and its forks) and cryptonight (Monero and forks) are some examples, but there are scores of other shitcoins and a few other algos that are GPU dominant. It is almost impossible that there will be another ASIC takeover, which is what was responsible for the stop in GPU demand in the bitcoin and litecoin days. Bottom line: ASICs no longer threaten GPU miners, or the demand for GPUs
Myth: Ethereum switching to Proof of Stake will kill mining soon Fact: Doomsayers have been preaching about proof of stake since late 2015. It has always been "coming soon." The fact is, the Ethereum roadmap goes from proof of work (mining) -> Casper (mining + PoS) -> Metropolis (PoS). Currently, the release date of Casper is not even announced yet, nor is it being tested in a (public) testnet. Proof of Stake might one day take over, but mining is here to stay for a while yet. Another thing to consider is that there are tons of other GPU mineable blockchains, and although Ethereum is biggest, it is certainly feasible that mining stays profitable even after Ethereum goes PoS (if it ever does). However, it is possible that profits will be low enough to discourage new miners. Bottom line: It's very unlikely. E: I screwed up the roadmap; here is a better source than me with some interesting information: https://www.ethnews.com/ethereums-vitalik-buterin-gives-keynote-on-metropolis
Myth: The current Ethereum demand spike is a bubble Opinion: Honestly, I don't know. I would not be surprised if stricter regulations on ICOs come sooner or later, which would fuck with Ether prices. There is also the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies. However, it is also possible that blockchain technology continues to gain traction; that is, the price could just as easily go up as go down. Although it's fun to read about other people's opinions, only time-travelling wizards can tell you when it will become economical again to upgrade your poor HD5770. Bottom line: No one knows.
Myth: Miners will "steal" all the RX Vegas Fact: Only a reckless miner would buy Vegas on release, since mining performance is not known. In fact, it is possible that it can't mine at all (or at some stupidly low speed) until devs add support to existing miners. It would be even more reckless than gamers who buy without seeing benchmarks, since at least gamers can expect the games to actually run. It's also not necessarily the case that Vega will be good once miners do add support. Maybe there will be enough reckless miners to affect supply, maybe not. Of course, it is possible that miners will deplete the supply after it is demonstrated that Vega is good for mining. Bottom line: Most miners won't preorder, but it's possible that a significant number will. E: Important to remember that even if mining demand isn't high, doesn't mean that supply will be plentiful.
Myth: Nvidia cards SUCK at mining Fact: Mostly false. They USED to suck in the old pre-Maxwell days, but now they are actually more efficient at mining Ethereum and Zcash compared to AMD cards, even after both cards are undervolted. The flipside is that they (used to) cost more for the equivalent hashrate. For reference, my old 5xRX470 rig drew just under 800W when mining ETH only and hashed at 150MH/s. My current 6xGTX1060 rig draws just over half of that (<450W) and hashes at about 135MH/s. Certainly not as good in raw performance, but they are viable nonetheless, especially given the AMD GPU shortage. In fact, Nvidia cards (1060 and especially 1070) are becoming scarce as well. Bottom line: Nvidia is still the underdog when it comes to mining, but far from irrelevant nowadays.
Myth: 4GB cards will be obsolete for mining soon Fact: FALSE. The Ethereum DAG is not even 3GB yet, and won't be for a few months. The recent reports of 4GB Polaris cards slowing down soon due to DAG size is caused by limited TLB capacity, not VRAM restrictions. Polaris cards will still be able to mine ETH forks such as Expanse and UBIQ without diminished speed, and even if they are used to mine ETH, it is not that much of a performance hit at first. It would certainly not make polaris useless or undesirable for mining anytime soon. Tahiti GPUs already suffer from this issue and Hawaii is the most resistant to this issue. Have not benched Nvidia at a later epoch.
Myth: Creating miner-bashing posts on Reddit will help alleviate the GPU supply problem Fact: False, you are simply giving cryptocurrencies and mining more exposure to the general public, increasing demand.
Myth: Mining-specific GPUs will solve the shortage problems Opinion: There's not enough info to tell yet, but I am a skeptic for the following reasons. First, no display limits the resale value of the card for obvious reasons. IMO, the whole point of crypto mining from a profitability standpoint is to have a hedge against coin volatility (hardware is still worth something if the coin crashes). Otherwise it is much less effort to just buy and hold the coin. If the hardware is useless without demand from other (significant) sources, then it doesn't make much sense to buy it unless the price is extremely low. I'm sure that cost-downing the PCB and warranty will make for a cheap card, but it has to be extremely cheap and plentiful in supply, or else miners will buy whatever they can get. I could envision "failed" chips (not meeting spec of consumer editions) being stuck in miner cards, but I doubt there are enough to meet demand without ramping up production as a whole, which carries its own risks. I guess that it would help a little, but probably not solve the problems. Alternatively, since modern GPUs are bottlenecked by RAM when mining, it might be enticing to miners to have the fastest (GDDR5) RAM on the market (probably the 9gbps chips from the 1060 6G 9gbps edition, although I don't have one to test). However, my previous points still apply; buying such a card without display outputs carries a big risk. Bottom line: It's not a great idea, unless they are super cheap or use really good RAM.
Hope this helped; if you have any further questions I will try to answer them. I'm both a gamer and miner who uses both AMD and Nvidia roughly equally and don't favor one group over another. I've mined and gamed on all high end AMD GPUs since Tahiti (except Tonga) and all Pascal cards except 1050ti.
submitted by key_smash to Amd [link] [comments]

[Announcement] Block Erupter USB 300MH/s ASIC MINER for less than 3 BTC each

[Announcement] Block Erupter USB 300MH/s ASIC MINER for less than 3 BTC each submitted by nasato to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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.
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

Ideal RAM access pattern

For all yall who are used to DDR4, here's a special trick with QDR-IV or RLDRAM. You can pipeline accesses in QDR-IV or RLDRAM. What does this mean?
First, it should be noted that Cryptonight has the following RAM access pattern:
QDR-IV and RLDRAM3 still have latency involved. Assuming 8-clocks of latency, the naive access pattern would be:
  1. Read
  2. Stall
  3. Stall
  4. Stall
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Write
  11. Stall
  12. Stall
  13. Stall
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Read #2
  20. Stall
  21. Stall
  22. Stall
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Write #2
  29. Stall
  30. Stall
  31. Stall
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
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.
  1. Cryptonight #1 Read
  2. Cryptonight #2 Read
  3. Cryptonight #3 Read
  4. Cryptonight #4 Read
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Cryptonight #1 Write
  11. Cryptonight #2 Write
  12. Cryptonight #3 Write
  13. Cryptonight #4 Write
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Cryptonight #1 Read #2
  20. Cryptonight #2 Read #2
  21. Cryptonight #3 Read #2
  22. Cryptonight #4 Read #2
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Cryptonight #1 Write #2
  29. Cryptonight #2 Write #2
  30. Cryptonight #3 Write #2
  31. Cryptonight #4 Write #2
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
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.

RLDRAM3

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.

RLDRAM2

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.

Realistic ASIC Sketch: RLDRAM3 + Parallel Processing

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.

TL;DR:

submitted by dragontamer5788 to Monero [link] [comments]

Is there a niche for a small portable digital "typewriters"? (or the story of my keyboard experience)

Hello, MK Redditors.
I'm here with quite an endeavour.
But first, let me tell you a little (actually, a lot. lol) about myself. My name is Ilya (yes-yes, I love you all). I'm from Russia and I have cerebral palsy (nothing to worry about, it's just the way it is). Because of my creative nature, I always wanted to make something. When I was a little kid, my favourite toy was a LEGO set. I had literary a full bucket of it and was building cities, machines and all sorts of stuff, functional and not. Then the school years came... I did well in school (it was a special one for students with disabilities). The only problem was I could not write. I mean, yeah... I can write by hand (thanks to my parents, pre-school teachers and my first teacher in elementary school), but it's much much slower than the non-disabled people, and even my disabled classmates were outpacing me in writing by hand. In the elementary school it was all right, I tried to keep a pace. But by the 3rd grade (we have 4 years elementary, 6 years middle and 2 years of high school) it became apparent that I needed some extra help with that. We did not have iPads, or iPhones and even cellphones were a luxury back in the late 90s - early 2000s. So the school had a couple of electric (but not digital) typewriters for the students like me. Oh... That clicks... That feels... For a small 10 y.o. me it was huge noisy beast of a mechanical and electrical powers fused together, literally spitting the letters on paper and choking on itself when the jam occurred (which, frankly speaking, occurred quite often under my little unstable fingers). But anyway, I was writing faster and faster. I loved it. To be able to materialise my ideas onto something physical (a.k.a. paper), to be able to express myself through the written text, to make my world on paper. It was fascinating. It was like LEGO, but on a much bigger scale. Because this time I was expressing myself not trough premade pieces of plastic, but rather using the words, building blocks of society and culture. Around the same time, my parents got me my first PC - the outdated Win95 machine with fat tube monitor covered with "eye-protecting" film, floppy discs as the only means of transferring files and, obviously, no internet. Keyboard was much slimmer, but also cheaper. There were no... character to it. But hey... It was the COMPOOOTER! My, personal, with all the software and hardware to explore. Being quite curious child, I was exploring the broad world of Computing. I remember crashing the system a couple of times due to my "what will happen if I delete/run this" to the point of complete wipe of the HD, or messed up BIOS. The computer guy would then come with like 20 Floppies to reinstall the system. The pure childish curiosity and no fear of making mistakes... The golden years, indeed.
The teenage years came in. I started to write poetry and songs. Because... well... hormones, love, hatred, broken heart and other teenage shite. OOTERS are becoming more powerful, KEEBS are becoming cheaper and shittier. One time I've completely worn off WASD claster (I loved Video Games. I still am, just don't have enough time to play them. The adult life got the best of me... lol)
Then... well... Came the UNI-time... I've switched to Mac to be "more productive", plus the MacOS looked nice and Windows were starting to go downhill. With Uni came the tremendous amount of writing. The first year I typed my course notes on a touch screen of my iPad. Because it's portable and much lighter than notebook (laptop). Then I got myself the case with the keyboard. The shittiest keyboard of all... Small... Uncomfortable... Rubbery-domey... My Apple Wireless is not the best keeb, but at least bearable. But what other options I had, for real? I could bring Battleship-type of keeb for iPad... But I did not know that mechanical keyboards existed. Until recently. I've beed lurking this place for quite some time. And thanks to this wonderful community, I'll be getting my first mech very soon. It's quite the investment. We shall see if it pays out.....
My other passion is programming and DIY electronics. I'm still a noob at it. But hey... Learning new skills is fun and good for your brain. I have built a 3D printer, a portable PC that I designed myself and a retro gaming console (on a RPi). So yeah...
So... TL;DR of this long introductory section: I love writing (as you can probably tell by this wall of text), computers and DIY.
That is my story so far. As you can see, the keyboards (at least for the way I see it) are becoming worse and worse, while PCs are becoming more commonly distributed. I mean EVERYONE's got a computer in one form or another, be it a stationary PC, a tablet PC or a smartphone.
Plus, the devises are becoming "smart". The "smartification" of our devices is so common, that we don't know whether our smart fridge is secretly streaming our nightly snack for the whole Internet to watch or mining that sweet sweet Bitcoin for the North Korea while we are on a holiday.
I'm thinking about my next DIY project. And since I've got my hands dirty in PCB design, I'm thinking of throwing together every skill I have and make... drum roll, please...
__
The portable digital typewriter.
__
Basically a smart mechanical keyboard. Something like Freewrite, but smaller and more portable and definitely cheaper. I'm thinking maybe a 40% layout with the Pi Zero W (even smaller version of a Raspberry Pi) as the brain.
If I like the end result, I might as well make a small batch and sell it. So... My main question is this:
Is there a market for such devices? Or is it just a gimmicky gadget that will be there for the LOLs? What are your opinions on such a device?
I myself would see this as a small niche item for the disabled like me who is in need for the small and portable device to write on or the writers who don't like to carry the laptop and the mech keyboard with them.
What do you, guys and gals of MKR, think about it?
Once again, sorry for a wall of text.
submitted by ILWrites to MechanicalKeyboards [link] [comments]

Addressing the many concerns related to Obelisk

Why make ASICs at all?

Our blog has a longer post on the subject, but the ultimate answer is that GPU mining is very insecure. For the vast majority of GPU mined coins out there (including Sia), it is the case that there are multiple, if not many, individuals who operate enough GPUs to execute a 51% attack against the coin all by themselves. There are some very large Ethereum GPU farms out there, and they are a threat to all small GPU-mined coins. (our market cap is a factor of 50 smaller than Ethereum - we are a small coin). And it's not just Ethereum farms to be afraid of, there are massive GPU farms dedicated to machine learning as well, and other big-data related use cases. All of those are potential sources for a 51% attack. Even worse, if the price of the coin tanks following such an attack, the attacker has nothing to lose, because the core purpose of their hardware is unrelated to Sia, and unaffected by a change in price.
Though it sounds terrible and unintuitive, a single centralized entity running ASICs would be a much more secure situation than this. Because with a single central ASIC entity, you get two huge advantages:
  1. There's only 1 entity capable of performing a 51% attack. This is much better than having multiple entities that are each individually capable of performing a 51% attack.
  2. If the price of the coin falls, the entity that has all of the hardware loses a lot of money. That hardware isn't good for anything besides Sia mining, so that entity is quite invested in propping up the siacoin price.
We chose ASICs over GPUs because even the worst case scenario is more secure and better for the coin than the situation with GPU mining.
But we also did not want a single entity owning and operating all of the ASICs. That's when we realized, if we were ASIC manufacturers ourselves, we could guarantee that at least one entity is selling chips to the larger community. The unfortunate fact is that either way, there is going to be a small number of chip manufacturers who have the power to sell chips to the community. Even so, this is a better situation than what you get with GPU mining.
We are making ASICs so that we can guarantee the first batch of ASICs will make it to the Sia community. Without that, we have no idea if the first batch of ASICs will be sold to the public or hoarded by some greedy investors who were able to pay the full price of manufacturing up-front.

Why are you doing the presale so early?

We, put simply, don't have enough cash even to do the early development of the chips. We need financing to pay for chip development.
Traditionally, we would find some private investors, have them front some millions, and in return promise them a very good deal on some hardware. The private investors would get the first stab at buying ASICs, they'd get a huge chunk, and they'd get them at an exclusive deal for taking on the risk early. We actually had private investors come forward offering this to us, with enough money to fund the full development and manufacture of the first batch of chips - this isn't a hypothetical, it's a real offer that the Sia team received.
This didn't seem fair to us. When we finally did get to the point where the miners were ready to be sold to the community, we would have to offer the community a worse deal. Less risky, but ultimately it would mean that the community was excluded from the opportunity of participating early, and the result is a huge chunk of the chips going to some private investors.
Such a situation is still better than GPU mining, but it didn't seem like the best that we could do. We felt that we could do better by opening the early presale to everyone.

Why not accept credit cards?

Payment processors are not friendly to Bitcoin products. We contacted Stripe and were told point-blank that they would not process payments for cryptocurrency miners. We appreciate everyone who pointed us towards Stripe as a bitcoin-friendly company, but they gave us a direct no.
Paypal has a long history of freezing merchant accounts with little warning, and when they do so they freeze your existing money in addition to freezing incoming payments - we would be unable to pay our bills if Paypal did this to us, and it would unquestionably cause delays. Visa and MasterCard are not much better in terms of track record.
Losing access to our accounts would unquestionably cause delays. ASIC hardware is already well known to suffer from serious delays, and we need to limit our exposure to delays.
We are in an industry that is unfortunately fraught with fraud. With revenue-generated devices such as miners, criminals are much more likely to try to target these devices as a way to cash in on stolen credit cards, stolen identities, hacked bank accounts, etc. The fraud rates are staggering, and as a result most payment processors outright refuse to deal with it. We are aware that Bitmain is partnered with Paypal, though we don't know the details behind how that came to be.

Why not accept Siacoin?

This was a harder decision. We could quite easily choose to accept siacoin, however we fear that Siacoin is not ready to handle such a massive presale. The market cap and daily volume of Bitcoin is a factor of 100 times as large as the Siacoin market cap and volume. Moving millions or tens of millions of dollars through Bitcoin is not likely to make much of a dent. Siacoin on the other hand, a sudden sell order for millions of dollars would likely tank the price. That not only means the ecosystem is unhappy with us, it also means that we might only be able to sell $2499 of siacoin for $2200.
A lot of people have accused us of not having confidence in our own coin. Unfortunately, this is true. Even at a $500 million market cap, Sia is not ready to handle a presale of this size. It's a pragmatic decision based on the fact that we don't want to dump our own coin. We know that people will be selling siacoin to buy the miners anyway, but we still feel that this situation is much better than us accepting siacoin directly.
This decision was a disappointment for us as well. We would love to accept siacoin, and if we weren't talking about processing millions of dollars in a single day, we absolutely would be accepting siacoin. And, as Sia continues growing up, the concerns above will become less and less.

What about this 5% gains/losses stuff?

Our intention was never to play fishy financial games with our users, and honestly this isn't even something that crossed our minds as a potential problem point. I think a big part of the issue was that people did not realize we will be converting to US dollars as fast as possible - we will be doing the conversion in minutes or hours as long as we can keep up with the order volume.
The rationale is very simple. If the price plummets before we are able to convert the Bitcoin, we won't have enough money to create the hardware. We really don't expect this to matter, because we don't expect the price to swing by more than $100 (which is what would be required) in the few hours that we're going to be sitting on the BTC. If it does, we'll need more coins or we can't produce the hardware - our costs are in dollars, which means we need to end up with the right amount of dollars in our account at the end of the day.
The original stance on not returning gains was also very simple. There's no transparency into when we sell the coins. If we sell the coins within 60 minutes of receiving them, and then 4 hours later there's a huge surge in the price, we will almost certainly have users emailing us and posting about how we owe them a refund. We won't have that refund, because we'll have sold the coins before the price rise.
There's not much we can do to provide transparency into this either. And we're likely to get requests for refunds even if it takes 3 months for Bitcoin to rise by 5%. This promise of returning gains that we've put forward is going to be a massive headache, because we're not expecting to have any gains, even if the price goes up by that much we'll have likely converted to USD faster than that. Our whole goal is to convert to USD as fast as possible.
We're sorry that we have to go through this headache at all. If we could get set up with a processor like Stripe, we could accept both Bitcoin and USD and let them deal with the conversion process, slippage risk, and all the other headache associated with using multiple currencies.

Why shipping a full 12 months away?

Before we set out to make Sia miners, we did a study of companies who had previously sold and pre-sold Bitcoin miners. This included talking to both Avalon and Butterfly Labs, and talking to professionals and advisors who have shipped hardware successfully in other industries. The core piece of advice we got was pretty consistent: expect delays. Expect lots of delays, and expect them to come from the most absurd setbacks. (Example: one of the people we talked to had to delay their product because there was a global shortage of power supplies, and they had to wait in line behind billion dollar companies to get some).
Our projections indicate that if all goes well, we should be able to ship the miners in 6-8 months. Nothing we are doing is new. Plenty of companies have gone through the process of developing a chip, manufacturing it, putting it in a box, and then shipping it to users. There is almost no innovation risk here. Sia's PoW algorithm is deliberately very ASIC friendly, even more than Bitcoin. We have advisors who have gone through this process before, and the types of challenges facing us are well known.
6-8 months is reasonable, except that every single person we've talked to has told us that unexpected delays is a guarantee, and that by nature of being unexpected, there's not really any way to prevent them by planning around them. Delays are just inherent to shipping hardware. So we chose to set our target at 12 months.
We will ship the miners as soon as they are ready. If we are a few months ahead of schedule, and have somehow managed to avoid the foretold delays, we will ship them months ahead of schedule. But we want our users to have a realistic understanding of the expected delays. We've baked a generous amount of time for setbacks into our shipping date. We'll almost certainly need at least some of it.

Why $2499?

Making chips is very expensive. We have to sell thousands of units to cover the cost of the chips. A nontrivial percentage of the price is going to go towards chassis, shipping, power supply, control board, fans, etc. Those costs are relatively the same even if we put in fewer chips, which means the total percentage of our budget going towards chips drops significantly. If we cut the price in half, we'll have to sell roughly three times as many units to break even on the cost of the chips. If we cut the price in half again, we'd need to sell a completely unreasonable number of units to break even on the cost of the chips. It's unfortunate, but the fixed costs of chip manufacture means that we really need vast majority of the price of the unit to be spent on chips, otherwise we simply won't be able to sell enough units.
There is a second reason as well. As stated in the section above, the industry is plagued by delays an unexpected expenses. We need a healthy budget to plan around potential setbacks, because we've been guaranteed that there will be multiple significant setbacks by those who have gone through this process before. If we bring down the price of the unit, we will also be reducing the amount of wiggle room we have for disaster if suddenly we have to replace parts, re-do designs, or otherwise perform expensive adjustments to our plans.

Are you guys qualified to be working on hardware?

Zach is a mechanical engineer, I've been in the Bitcoin space since before ASICs started shipping, and we have advisors who have successfully shipped hardware before. The team that is designing the chips for the miner has designed chips and shipped chips for Bitcoin miners previously - they are familiar with the whole process, and have done it before. The people in charge of designing the PCB board and other aspects of the miner are also all experienced with their respective tasks. We will be facilitating frequent and strong communications between everyone working on the various components of the miner.
The ultimate answer is that the Sia development team is not qualified to be making this type of hardware. However, the Sia development team is not the team working on the hardware. Most of the heavy lifting is being performed by teams with lots of experience in this industry, including experience that is directly related to cryptocurrency miners.
What we are doing is not new. Dozens of cryptocurrency miners have been created and shipped in the past, and we are not starting from day zero. We have many advantages over the previous rounds of pre-sale cryptocurrency miners, but the biggest is that it's no longer the wild west of hardware design. There is a standard, and there are tried-and-true methods for making reliable cryptocurrency miners. We get to fall back on the mistakes and successes of the many miners that have been built previously, and we will be leaning heavily on teams and people that have direct experience in this field as opposed to doing everything ourselves.

Does this mean that Sia is getting less attention from the developers?

Sia right now has four full time employees. Myself, Zach, Luke, and Johnathan. Zach was hired in June 2017, less than one month ago. He is not a programmer.
Luke and Johnathan will continue with the same responsibilities that they've always had. They helped out a little bit in setting up the website, and in setting up a secure database to process orders + payment information, however the majority of their time has been focused on Sia even as we set up this presale. Going forward, they will be almost entirely uninvolved in Obelisk.
I have had to allocate about 25% of my time to Obelisk. Slightly more this week, due to the PR meltdown we had from the initial announcement. But most of my time is still going towards Sia. Most people know I work over 100 hours per week (some weeks will eclipse 120), and that a quarter of my time is not a small amount.
Zach is closer to 50% Sia, 50% Obelisk at this point. We're expecting that to tone down once the presale is over - much of this time has been spent with banks, with lawyers, with payment processors, and we won't have to do that beyond the initial setup phase. Zach and myself will still be having weekly conversations with every part of the Obelisk supply chain, including the chip designers, chip manufacturers, control board designers, the miner assembly teams, and the fulfillment centers, so even after the presale there will be effort going towards Obelisk.
But nobody on the Sia team is doing chip design, nobody is doing control board design, most of the really heavy work is being done by experienced teams and suppliers that we've found and already spent weeks vetting and verifying. We incorporated Obelisk as a separate company precisely so that Obelisk would eventually have a completely separate team.
And finally, as Obelisk is wholly owned by Nebulous, a successful hardware company does mean revenue and income for the Sia team. Cryptocurrency mining tends to be low margin, so tens of millions in revenue for Obelisk does not necessarily millions in funding for the Sia team. But it is something, and it will give us more time to get the storage platform to the next levels of maturity.

Conclusion

I know that a lot of you are concerned about the miner presale that we are conducting. I hope that this post has helped to alleviate those concerns. I hope it makes sense why we are doing a public presale, instead of seeking private investment until we have a full prototype. I hope this post has clarified our decisions around payment methods, and around our price point. I hope you feel more confident that this is something we will be able to pull off. And finally, I hope I've reassured you guys that Sia is still our primary focus, and that we haven't suddenly pivoted into being a hardware company.
We are ultimately doing this to provide better security to the Sia network. GPU mined coins are frighteningly insecure, and Sia is now large enough where there is serious money on the line. We are doing this to gain security, and also to ensure as much decentralization as possible when it comes to chip manufacture.
We are typically viewed as one of the most reputable teams in cryptocurrency, and I know it's why a lot of you are here. We hope that the Sia ASIC that we are going to be manufacturing and selling strengthens this reputation, but ultimately we will not find out until the miners are actually being shipped.
We continue to be excited about this new product. We truly do feel that ASICs are the right direction for Sia, and we also feel that we are doing the right thing by bringing the opportunity to own a Sia ASIC to the broader Sia community. We are sorry for the fallout from our sloppy original announcement, and we hope that we have since made up for it.
Finally, we hope that you are interested in buying a miner. Even if we only sell a small batch, ASICs are going to utterly dominate the hashrate of Sia going forward. This is an egalitarian sale where everyone has equal opportunity to buy a miner - there's no cap, and we will ensure that small buyers are not shut out by larger buyers in any way.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

Cybtc Review: Bitmain Antminer S15-28TH/s

Cybtc Review: Bitmain Antminer S15-28TH/s
Bitmain is a technology company specializing in high-speed, low-power custom chip design and development, successfully designed and produced a variety of ASIC custom chips and integrated systems. Bitmain was founded in 2013. In the same year, it launched the first generation bitcoin mining machine of the ant mining machine series - Antminer S1. After more than five years of development, the antminer series bitcoin mining machine passed S1, S2, S3, S4 Iterations of multiple models of S5, S7 and S9, the latest bitcoin mining models are S15 and T15, which will be sold on November 8, 2018.

The Antminer S15 adopts a new 7nm chip process. The official evaluation of the S15 is durable, energy saving. Emphasizing the characteristics of "high performance, more durable, and more power saving". From the officially announced parameters, the Antminer S15 is built in. Standard and low-power mining modes. The officially announced parameters have a unit-to-power ratio of 57J/T in standard mode, and the unit-to-power ratio of low-power mode has reached 50J/T. Compared to the products in the current market, in terms of Bitcoin miners, this unit power consumption ratio has set a new record.

Antminer S15 official parameters,

https://preview.redd.it/9fgwfaqp6bd21.jpg?width=1015&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8239da7bcece1abb80f1fb56708e02fa111a150b

Recently, the Antminer S15 has sent to Cybtc for testing. Please see the third-party independent review by us.

I. Unpacking:

Because the Antminer S15 adopts a new all-in-one and parallel fan design, the packaging box has changed from the previous generations. The previous cuboid has changed into a square-like style. The packaging material is still packaged in an industrial carton, and the box is marked manufacturer information, logistics warehousing logo, mining machine specification model and strip identification code, outer box size: 486*388*265, weight about 8.7kg.

The interior of the two pieces of styrofoam is firmly packed in the box from the upper and lower sides to ensure the safety of the mining machine during transportation. There is also a gap around the pearl foam for easy access.

Take out the styrofoam on one side to see the main body of the mining machine. The mining machine is wrapped by an anti-electrostatic bag. Compared with the box, the mining machine looks very small and only takes up about half of the box space.

The Antminer S15 changed the style of single-tube with double cooling fans as S1-S9 models, and became a dual-fan parallel single-side air intake and adopted the integrated machine design of the mining machine + power supply. The whole machine size is 279*175*221mm, weight 7.13 kg.

https://preview.redd.it/k0xp89yy6bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5504d958a4cc6fdb1c01783b777e60483ea7ef9a

The Antminer S15 is small and neat, the air inlet side and the mining machine interface side are on the same side, the fan is removed from the air outlet side, and a honeycomb-shaped baffle is used.

https://preview.redd.it/ex187jf27bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e8210c514e186dae075d9b986f7682a49141aa6a

The advantage of the all-in-one design is that the wire connection is reduced. The appearance of the mining machine is more compact, and the use and operation and maintenance are more convenient. The connection between the Antminer S15 mining machine and the power supply uses a clip-connected design, and the controller and the power board are still connected by flat signal cable.

https://preview.redd.it/85cz4u4c7bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab87c2f4c2943f0e9eb3dbbe2576f9d043add399

The nameplate of the mining machine body is marked with the model number, hash rate, and identification bar code. If the bottom part can increase the anti-slip mat, it is better to strengthen the stability of the mining machine when it is placed horizontally. The mining machine supports the erect and horizontal two ways. On the rack, the miner can choose the placement method according to the size of the mine rack.

https://preview.redd.it/wxavyize7bd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ab2335eabb3b13731284f89805abcb131bfbda4

II. Antminer S15 installation:

The design of the Antminer S15 all-in-one machine reduces the link of the power line of the plugging and unloading machine. As long as it is placed in the rack, plug in the power cable and the network cable to complete the hardware installation.

Find the mine IP address. Antminer S15 mining machine is automatically assigned IP mode, you can enter the local router to view the IP address named "antMiner".

Or use the ant official mining machine management software BitmainMinerTool to scan the IP address of the current mining machine. You can also use the management software to set the mining pool address and worker name, update the firmware, etc. When the number of mining machines is large, you can also use the mining machine. IP report button to find the IP address of the mining machine.

To view the real-time status of a single mining machine, you need to enter the mining machine control page. First, enter the mining machine IP into the control page home page, and then enter the default user name and password (the default is root) to enter the mining machine control page.

The new mining machine needs to modify the name of the mining pool and miners, click on the “Miner Configuration” page to modify the main mining pool address and worker name, and modify the two alternate mining pool addresses and miners' names as needed. Antminer S15 has built-in standard and low-power mining modes, so you can easily select any mode mining on this page according to your needs. After each setting is completed, click “Save&Apply” to save the settings and apply.

After saving, the miner will restart the mining procedure. After about a few minutes of normal operation of the mining machine, you can enter the mining operation interface “Miner Status” to check the operation of the mining machine, including running time, hash rate, Chip status, operating frequency, PCB board and chip temperature, fan speed and other parameters information.

III. Review:

The Antminer S15 has standard mining mode and low power consumption mode. Therefore, we tested the two modes for 24 hours respectively. The test environment temperature is about 17 degrees, and the noise value is around 36 decibels.

https://preview.redd.it/2wzornwmabd21.jpg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62e6e57755d70d526eeda4066a31b042473871a8

After the mining machine is turned on, the fan runs at full speed, the power consumption of the boot is about 25W and further increases slowly, and the noise level is up to 81.2 dB.

Standard mode test

Power consumption: The miner's chip is fully operational, and the control page power is 28T. The measured power consumption of the miner is 1610-1620W, which is in line with the officially announced 1596W ±7% level.

Noise: Due to the low ambient temperature, the number of fan rotations is basically stable at around 3120 rpm. The noise value of the operating environment is measured to be 76.5 decibels. The distance of the mine is 27.7 meters, and the noise level is properly controlled.

Temperature: Antminer S15 has a total of four mining boards. There are four temperature-sensing modules distributed on each calculation board. The chip temperature is at least 44 degrees and the highest is 78 degrees. Thanks to the Exposed Die package, the outlet temperature is about 42 degrees. The power outlet temperature is about 28 degrees.

https://preview.redd.it/h71plzf0bbd21.jpg?width=641&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=588728e6a87b510d5cc65eb41a1ffe80d6435f17

Because the Antminer S15 adopts the one-piece design, We also test the contact temperature of the power supply and the mining machine's power board. It can be clearly seen that the temperature values ​​of each point are different.

https://preview.redd.it/4ghcl4i3bbd21.jpg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a344917e4a3b529aef58127f5e5c8fdaa61c62fa

Hash rate: After 24 hours test in the btc.com mining pool, the average hash rate of the Antminer S15 in 24 hours was 28.56 TH/s. Thus calculate the unit energy efficiency ratio = 1620W / 28.56 ≈ 56.72W / T, and the official published data 57 J / T consistent.

Low power mode test

Power consumption: After checking the option behind “Low Power Mode” on the Antminer S15 Pool Settings page and saving the application, the miner can run in low power mode. After the power of the mining machine control page reaches 17T, the measured power consumption is up to 836.6W, and the running data meets the official data of 775W ±7% - 900W ±7%.

Noise: As the power and power consumption are reduced, the fan speed is basically stable at around 2400 rpm, the measured operating environment noise value is 77 decibels, and the distance measured by the mining machine is about 66 decibels at a distance of 2 meters. The noise level and the standard mode. At the same level.

Temperature: The four mining board chips have a minimum temperature of 25 degrees and a maximum of 62 degrees. The outlet temperature is about 30 degrees, which is slightly lower than the standard mode. The temperature of the power outlet is about 20 degrees.

https://preview.redd.it/r4f2ww96cbd21.jpg?width=641&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ae3051c74634ac9d98373d71e8fee3f542d455c5

Contact point temperature value between the power supply and mining machine mining board.
https://preview.redd.it/fskmubi8cbd21.jpg?width=990&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a1616d21af2b87bc0996f1ce388b3ab9983d33dd

Hash rate: After 24 hours of testing in the btc.com mine, the average 24-hour power was measured at 17.5TH/S. Thus calculate the unit energy efficiency ratio = 836.6W / 17.5 ≈ 47.8W / T, lower than the official published data 50 J / T.

IV. Summary:

Two built-in mining modes. The power consumption per unit of power in low-power mode is lower than 50W/T, which is better. The lower the power consumption ratio, the lower the price of the shutdown.
One machine design reduces the wire, beautiful and convenient.
Exposed Die package improves heat dissipation, increasing the number of chips per unit volume and reducing heat sinks, reducing overall weight.
The new AWP8 power supply is used, easy to assemble and disassemble.
The machine noise is lower and the temperature is lower than other mining machines.
The calculation power of the whole machine is stable and fluctuating.

Finally, exposed power connectors may cause problems if touch the iron on the shelf. Maybe it can have improvement.

The Antminer series mining machine has evolved from S1 to S15, and the computing power has evolved from S180's 180G/360W to S15's 28000G/1600W. This is not just a digital evolution, but also the ups and downs of the Bitcoin industry. The mining machine is upgrading. Bitcoin is advancing, leaving many stories in the chain, the currency circle and the mining ring than the ten-year journey of holding the currency. In the two-year life cycle of S9, S9's bitcoin mining machine market share is far ahead, and currently in the market background of the rising bitcoin computing power, the depressed bear market and more new mining machines, Whether the ant S15 can create a new benchmark for the bitcoin mining machine, time will give us the answer.

More miner and crypto reviews on: cybtc.org
Telegram:https://t.me/joinchat/LgPYnE1vPpXqYDVpPaQyxw
Discord:https://discord.gg/RfCZMNY

submitted by cybtc to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

A few days ago, I posted a picture of a Bitcoin ticker running on a Raspberry Pi LCD screen. Since a few people have asked, I wanted to post links to the screen and the code I wrote, released under a GNU license

Here is the screen for sale on Adafruit.com, which is really nice and readable in all lighting conditions:
http://www.adafruit.com/products/1110
And here is the tutorial that they provide for setting that screen up. Really clear and easy to follow:
http://learn.adafruit.com/adafruit-16x2-character-lcd-plus-keypad-for-raspberry-pi/overview
Finally, here is the Python code I used for the ticker. It's quite simple really. The Adafruit LCD library does most of the heavy lifting, and I use the Requests library and standard JSON library to handle the API call. It should be pretty self-explanatory, but feel free to ask any questions you may have in the comments:
http://pastebin.com/DUT0GFZ4
I don't know much about licensing, but I think it's appropriate to release this under the GNU license. Do whatever you want with it. Enjoy!
submitted by itsalwayslulzy to raspberry_pi [link] [comments]

I had like 3 friends ask me how to build a PC in the past week so I made this to help them.

(Reddit Edit: Help my improve the document with productive constructive comments on what I got wrong or messed up! Im only human lol
Also a lot of this is supposed to be kinda humorous. I didn't think I had to say that but, hey, its the internet.
I appreciate the positive and productive comments! )
Beginners basic guide to building your own PC as of early 2018
(EDIT: Sorry for being a MSI/Corsair Fanboy)
Heres a collection of thoughts to consider when building your own personal PC
As always Id personally use PCPartPicker.com to configure your parts and for further thoughts on compatibility.
First off building a computer is 100% based around what you plan to use the computer for.
Here are a few uses and generic ideas of what to go for. Audio Editing: Lots of small tasks that need to be completed quickly without lag. - Fast Processor( >4GHZ) - Fast RAM (MHZ) -At least 16 gigs! - Fast Storage, SSD manditorily - M.2 or PCI for best performance. - Shitty Graphics card, graphics card there only to keep the cpu from doing other tasks when working. - Can be a few generations or years old. - Many screens for lots of plug in windows to be open Video Editing: Lots of large to render and files to read. - Multi core processor the more the merrier - SSD for fast read/write of large video files. - Insane graphics card, AMD graphics cards are debatibly better but the nvidia Quadro series are specific for video rendering. Gaming: No more than 4 cores intense graphics card - 92% of games are not coded for more than 4 cores so why spend the extra money for it. - SSD for quick load screens - Nvidia cards, 10 series, the higher the number the better. Titan cards for MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! Coding: quick processor for lots of small tasks. Ergonomic peripherials? - Dear god please dont use a mechanical keyboard so that your coworkers dont kill you. Home office: Everything can be a few gens behind so you can get the best power per dollar spent. - Sorry that Gateway doesnt exist anymore. I guess try Dell... 
Parts (Expensive Legos)
CPU (tells things to go places and outputs data) Basically three main routes to go for: Intel, AMD, or ASIC. Intel - Gaming, Data center, Hackintosh Pros: Cooler, Faster speed (GHZ), short small tasks faster Cons: $$$$, less cores AMD - Gaming, Personal Computing, Large task processing Pros: Lots of cores, better price per performance, faster processing of large tasks Cons: Hot chips, large chips?, compatibility issues with MacOS. ASIC - "Application-specific integrated circuit" Pros: Does the task that they are made to do insanely efficently, great for mining. Cons: Literally does nothing else. Holy hell these are expensive, very hot (fans will get loud) CPU Cooler (Im a big fan) Most come with an in box cooler that are ok but please buy aftermarket. In Box - the free shitty cooler that comes with the processor. Pros: Free. Cons: Ugly, makes chip run hot, hard to clean Air cooler - oldest type of cooler but new designs are highly efficent. Pros: Only cooler that has the possibility of being 100% quiet, most likely cheaper Cons: large, if cooler isnt large enough for the chips thermal output the fans will be loud. Liquid - Custom pipes are beautiful, AIO is easy to install and offers similare performance. Pros: Looks cool, great temperatures, "quiet" Cons: Water pump has possibility of being loud, possible spills Phase Change - uses the technology of refridgerators to cool the chip Pros: Can overclock until the chip breaks. (whats colder than cold? ICE COLD!) Cons: Loud (compressor noise), Large pipes, just why.... Motherboard (the convienacnce store of computer parts) Really just about what type of I/O you want. - MAKE SURE FORM FACTOR FITS YOUR CASE! (or vice versa) - Look for PCI lanes for expansion. - How many graphic cards do you have? - PCI based interfaces? - PCI SSD? - PCI DAC? - PCI WIFI? - USbs? Network? Audio? - How many lanes of RAM? - DOES IT FIT YOUR PROCESSOR!?! (really tho) - M.2? - How many sata interaces? Good Brands: MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte Bad Brands: AS(s)Rock, Dell Memory (Dory) - The more the merrier - No less than 8gb for a functional windows machine (16 gb to never have a problem) - Use all the lanes your computer has to offer! the more lanes to access the faster the data can travel! -Imagine drinking a milkshake. If the straw is wider you can drink more of the milkshake than a skinny straw. - Faster MHZ for faster data access but give minimal performance differances - Please get ram with heat spreadders unles youre building a server with high airflow. - Make sure the type (DDR3 or DDR4) of RAM matches what your processomotherboard call for. Good Brands: Corsair, G.Skill, Ballistix Storage (Grandpa that remembers everythign about how things used to be but takes forever to learn a new tasK) Speed or massive storage? slower is cheaper. Golden ratio of speed/storage/price is 250-500 gb SSD and a 1+ tb disk drive. *Max speeds listed are for a single drive not RAID* Hard Disk Drives (HDD) - Cheapest and slowest - read/write speeds of < 0.5gb/s - 7200+ RPM or GTFO - Higher Speed drives can access data faster. - Do not move while powered up. physical parts will break. - Larger Cahche = faster Read/Write Speeds Pros: Cheap, Holds massive amounts of data Cons: Slower than molasses in a frezer Reputible Brands: Seagate, WD Solid State Drives (SSD) - necessity for quick boots and fast load screens (can only be re-written to so many times) - SATA based (2.5 inch)- Read/Write speeds capped @ 6 gb/s Pros: Most economical, form factor fits with old computers, Cons: "Slow" compared to other ssd's (but stil 12 times faster than a HDD) - M.2 based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 10 gb/s Pros: Size of a sick of gum! High End but not too expensive to be out of reach. Cons: Expensive for any size over 500 gb - PCI based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 20 gb/s for PCI3, x4 Pros: HOLY BANDWIDTH BATMAN! Faster than that little creepy ghost thats always in the corner of you eye Cons: You might have to take out a loan to buy one. *takes up a x4 PCI Lane* Reputible Brands: Samsung! Corsair, Plextor, Intel, Kingston, Crucial Video Card (that one kid that has thick glasses and is really good at math) - A regular old PCI card that handles all of the video rendering and output for your computer. - ASIC PCI cards. - The PCBs and chips are patented by two main companies but the differances come from line up and varying manufacturer cooling devices. - The more memory the better -NVIDIA (Team Green) Great for gaming, has specific card series for intensive rendering. Lazy driver updates. - Gaming - 900 series - Cheap - Low performance - Can play any video game made befrore 2010 on max settings - 1000 (ten) series - Expensive (thanks bitcoin miners...) - Great for VR! - Video Rendering -Quadro Series - Gaming and Rendering - Titan X - Maxwell based chip same as 900 series cards - Titan XP - Pascal based chip same as 10 series cards -AMD (Team Red) Underdog does the same thing but slighly worse and cheaper. (except video rendering) - Gaming - RX 400 series - Cheap - Hot - RX 500 series - Cheap - Ok at VR and deacent gaming frame rates. - Not bad but not particularly great either. - Video Rendering - Fire Pro series - Gaming and Rendering - Vega series -Good luck finding one to buy lmao Case (Fancy clothing for your parts!) - Similar to human clothing you want it to do a few main things really well with compromises for each extreme. - Durability - Steel - Incredibly durable - Creates Farady cage for components - Heavy af - Magnets, just magnets.... - Rust over time - Aluminium - Light - East to bend for modding or "physical maintenance" - Less likely to rust - Huzzah for Farady cages! - Plastic - Just dont - no electrical Ground - no faraday cage - Light AF! - Breath (Airflow) - positive internal airflow! - larger fans push the same amount of air with less speed/noise - Looks - Window? - RGB - Cool Paint? - Fit all your parts - graphics card length/ clearacne - support for liquid cooling raiators? - How many spots for HDD/SSDs - Motherboard format - Cable management! Power Supply (FIGHT MILK) - Rule of thumb: BUy Powersupply that outputs 1.5 times the wattage that you need. - You can walk further than you can you can run. - The PSU can casually output 50-75% power for much longer than at 90-100% (without failure) - If you never demand enough wattage for it to get hot the fan doesnt have to turn on therefore making it quieter. - Modular means you can remove/replace the cables from the PSU. Reputible Brands: Corsair, EVGA Optical Drive (motorized cup holder) - You can download most things today so I'd suggest against it unless you really NEED to watch/write DVD's/CD's Operating System (software that makes everything work) Windows (Always Updates) - Compatible with just about everything - Easy to learn to code on! - POS inital browser - Likely to get virus's Linux (Penguins are cute) - Unique - takes less resources to run - Barebones - Incredibly personalizable! - Compatibility issues with just about everything MacOS (Linux but more annoying) - It is legal! - Great for art and your grandma that doenst know how to use computers! - User friendly - Compatibility issues with various hardware - Confusing/Limiting coding structure Peripherials (cables everywhere!) - Keyboard (higer Polling rate is better) - Mechanical (key is pressed at an exact stroke length every time - Mouse (Higher Polling rate is better) - more buttons = better? - DPI (Dots Per Inch) - In theory, if a mouse has 1600 DPI, then, if you move your mouse one inch (2.54 cm), the mouse cursor will move 1600 pixels - Higher DPI the faster your cursor is able to be moved. - Monitor - In theory the human eye cant see faster than 60 frames per second. - Keep in mind Pixel ratio! - 4k screen that is 22inches will have more pixels in a square inch than a 4k screen that is 28 inches. - Interface? - DVI (Analog) - thumbscrews..... - can do two monitors with one port! - support for 4k - VGA (Analog) - thumbscrews... - max resolution is 1440p - Display Port (digital) - nice button clip - supports 4k - HDMI (Digital) - 1.2 or higer supports 4k - DAC/Speakers/Headphones - Dont even get me started - Microphone - Dont get me started PT.2 Other (other) - UPS (uninterruptible power supply) Just a battery that allows your computer to have some time if the power ever goes out so that you have time to save your work. - Cable Organization materials! - Zipties - velcro - LED LIGHTING! - Manditory - Extra/Better fans - More pressure, less woosh - IFIXIT Pro Tech Toolkit - becasue who buys just one torx wrench. - Cute kitten mousepad - Yes, it has to be a cat. Dont argue 
This is a very general entry into building computers and what you should buy/look for. If you have any questions/comments send me an e-mail!
-Zac Holley-
submitted by Zac_Attack13 to pcmasterrace [link] [comments]

Check out Part 2 of our first Skycoin Official AMA with Synth

Enjoy Part 2 of 2 of the Skycoin Official AMA with Synth for March, 2018. Part 1 is posted here.
 
How will skywire stop centralization such as massive skywire node forwarding servers, like with the current internet?
There will be more competition between pools in Skycoin than there is in Bitcoin. If that problem occurs, then we will deal with it, we have strategies and models in place to handle this potential scenario.
 
How will it stop whales building humongous skyminer pools in massive cities such as New York that will forward all the nodes in that city?
If a whale wants to come in and invest 1 billion dollars, to take control of the internet service for a whole city, then it will only make Skycoin grow faster. If it becomes a problem like what is happening for Bitcoin right now, then we have plans in place to handle the issue.
The miner pools can only be so abusive in Skycoin, because if the pools are too abusive, then other people will switch to smaller pools that give them a better deal.
 
How do you solve mining for bandwidth? What is to stop an attacker putting two routers next to each other to print money?
This is of the reasons why Skycoin will work and we do not think we have any viable competitors. We know how to solve this problem.
The short answer is that we are not paying users for bandwidth. Users are paying each other. So if you put two routers next to each other in a loop, then you are paying yourself for your own bandwidth! So you are not printing money. It is the same as moving money from one of your wallets, to the other wallet.
Skycoin does not “print money”. There is zero inflation. It is a closed loop economy.
Our mathematical models show that if the network is not running in closed loop, that you can always game the system and eventually botnets will take over all of the rewards.
There is another way we found, which uses a bandwidth credit system and later we can build futures and derivatives markets. Since bandwidth is scarce, but is wasted if not used our algorithm allows a certain amount of fraud (acceptable loss ratio) to be factored in but mathematically guarantees that the fraud stays below a certain threshold. There is a maximum amount or upper bound a node can get away with, before it detected and the other nodes stop working with the node.
Basicly, eventually the nodes have a reputation system and nodes prefer other nodes who follow the rules over nodes that try to engage in bandwidth fraud.
We have a simple working solution for the testnet, then we will start building up the full solution, which will also improve the network performance a lot by directing most of the rewards at trustworthy nodes with a high uptime, lower latency and higher bandwidth capacity. The node reputation system will take a bit of work, but will allow us to do a lot of new thing with QoS and routing.
 
Since the people using Skywire resources depend on those resources to report what happens to the outside world, how do you stop adversarial actors from defrauding users using information asymmetry between the users and the blockchain? How do you do this without an enormous amount of overhead?
Adversarial actors are a major problem in any system where anything of value is concerned.
If you do not have a solution for fraud, then bots will come in and steal all the money. Imagine you are running a poker site with 100,000 humans on it. Then someone floods the poker site with 1 million bots (who are better at poker than humans). The bots are going to steal all the money from your users and they will leave (because they are only losing now and the game is not balanced anymore).
If you tell people “I will give you money for running this computer program”, there are people who control 15 million computers and they will just run the program on their botnet. All of the money will goto the bots.
Skywire solves the bot problem by a sort of peer-to-peer whitelisting protocol. We do not let people flood the network with bots. Each node maintains a peer list and if you want to peer a human has to add the peer on both ends by hand, so it’s harder for a botnet to come in and try to take over.
People, because they are social, will peer with people they know personally (their own social network or communities). It’s designed so that people with high quality, hand curated peer lists will have a significant advantage over someone who peers with 10 million slow botnet computers, running on laptops running windows XP. Also people who own dedicated hardware will also have much better performance metrics and will be rewarded more than botnet computers.
The overhead for the record keeping is only 2% to 6% of the total bandwidth in the network, depending on how long the sessions are and the specifics. So the overhead is at the same level as for the existing internet.
 
Why did you use Orange Pi’s, that have their NIC on a USB 2.0 bus, for the hardware in the Skynodes?
Ideally, for security, the NIC should not have DMA (Direct Memory Access). USB 3.0 is a nightmare. USB 2.0 is bad and USB 1.0 is actually better (more secure, but slower).
The NIC drivers or firmware usually have a lot of dangerous security problems.
We are designing a custom PCB and there are several security, cost, design issues that do not have a clear best solution. The NIC is on the USB 2.0 bus, primarily because that is what the chip supports and because of cost.
 
What is to stop the cable lobbyist and the FCC who have already proven they will go against the will of the people from banning skywire? Couldn't they stop people from getting access to the backhaul and outright outlaw the entire concept? When I asked on the Telegram everyone dismissed the concern and said 'its impossible to stop us, look at the darknet'. And while that is true, for skywire to work don't you need widespread normie adoption? What percentage of people would actually run this if they banned it?
There are many, extremely wealthy and powerful groups that are being squeezed out by the FCC and the internet monopolies. There are some surprising large and powerful players that will support (publicly or clandestinely) any project that gives them some breathing room from the telecom squeeze out.
We want them to try to ban Skywire. That means we are winning.
You have to understand the context of the FCC and the cable companies.
The cable companies were forced to be very aggressive and remove net neutrality and start using mafia extraction tactics against companies like Netflix and Google, because of earnings pressure. The cable companies all have declining revenue because people are using the internet for video and are “cord cutting”. The CEOs and management are desperate to keep their stock prices up and slow down the earnings decline.
The CEOs of the cable companies are under extreme pressure to increase earnings in the short term, but are using tactics that will create a lasting long term backlash. The CEOs will increase earnings, they will see their stock prices go up, they will cash out their options and retire to the Hamptons. The backlash will be the next CEOs problem.
Skywire is global and the FCC only matters in the US. In Europe there is much more diversity in ISPs and you wont see the type of battle and resistance they will put on in the US.
The cable companies are dying. They are the dinosaurs whining and moaning before the meteor impact. Fighting technology innovations like Skywire is part of the process of the demise of these telecom monopolies, but it is not something to worry about.
If they are attacking us, it means we are winning. We will be ready.
 
Do you have an estimate for when coin hours will have value and be tradable?
We are working on getting the exchange up, but it will need to wait until the testnet. First we will make coinhours tradable, then we will open them up for exchange.
 
How, in simple terms, do coin hours prevent spam?
The more they spam, the more scarce and expensive the coinhours become. If someone spams or attacks Skycoin, the Skycoin price will actually go up.
Since there are only a finite, scarce number of Skycoin and each Skycoin generates a fixed number of coinhours per hour; then coinhours become scarce and valuable. They put a price on transactions.
An attacker or spammer has to ask “Should I just sell my coinhours for money or should I spam and lose money?”. Eventually the spammer will use up all of his coinhours and then will have to buy them from someone else to keep spamming. Eventually they will even drive the market rate of the coinhours up, until the spamming becomes so expensive that they run out of money or give up.
 
On telegram you wrote coin hours are meant to be volatile if I'm not mistaken. Will this be a problem in the future?
It depends. By shuffling volatility from Skycoin, to the coin hours it makes Skycoin more valuable as a store of value and as a currency for transactions.
We want people to spend coin hours. If Skycoin is going up everyday 5% a day, why would you spend it? If we priced the bandwidth in Skycoin, the whole network would shutdown because everyone would just be hoarding their Skycoin instead of spending them! That is why we introduced coinhours.
Coinhours solve the problem of hoarding and gives people a currency which they are encouraged to spend. Skycoin is a better store of value because there is no inflation, while coinhours are better for transactions because they have an inflation rate that encourages people to spend them.
The market cap of the Skycoin coinhours could actually be higher than the market cap of Skycoin under some conditions.
Everyone is very excited to see what the price coinhours settle at. People are betting on the market and cannot wait to trade and speculate on the coinhours (either dumping them before they go down to zero, or hoarding them incase they go up 500x). I was surprised at how excited people are about the coinhours.
 
Are there any more coins launching on skyledger soon you can talk about?
Kittycash.com, mdl.life, SPACO, solarbankers.com, and more...
I have been so busy with Skycoin I cannot even keep up with the new ICOs.
We are opening up the platform now and more people will be launching coins that I could possible keep track of. We should probably have a registry to track the Skyledger ICOs.
 
Will it be easier to launch coins on skyledger in the future? Any other skyledger updates?
Yes. We have a script now for launching new coins!
In 30 seconds you will be able to: Create your coin Have your ICO software running to collect money Have the coin automatically listed on an internal exchange (instead of waiting 8 months to get listed on some mega exchange) Have mobile, desktop and hardware wallet support Skyledger is getting a rebranding and its own marketing team. We have several flagship coins in development, that will help alot for Skycoin marketing.
 
Synth mentioned months ago in the telegram chat that Obelisk was still in development, when and how will the algorithm be tested and release? How are the actual transactions validated if obelisk is not the algorithm used?
We have done several simulations. There are several peer reviewed academic research papers published about it. There are open source simulations in the github repo.
The exchanges are worried about us enabling the full consensus algorithm without enough testing. We have to do a lot of testing before we turn everything on.
Currently the exchanges forced us to use a masternode dev check-point system. Over time, we are going to make extensive changes to the node and keep minting on the checkpoint system, while rolling out everything. Then after extensive testing, will roll out everything in stages.
The testing of the new features and stages, needs to be done on a smaller coin (other Skyledger coins) before being rolled out to Skycoin. Skycoin’s market cap is too large and we have to be cautious about bugs and not rolling out new code before its tested.
The dev check-point system is a compromise that allows us to test new consensus algorithms, while protecting the exchanges. If the exchanges lose money from a bug and lose $200,000 in Skycoin then we have to pay them for the lose basicly.
The exchanges are all short-staffed because of massive user base growth. They are taking weeks sometimes to upgrade the Skycoin node version, after we release a new version. We have to carefully coordinate our release and upgrade schedules to minimize exchange downtimes.
The short answer, is; we can roll out everything in a few weeks (if we had to). Everything is tested and ready to go. However, because of the exchanges are overloaded, we have to roll it out carefully in planned stages, with a months notification for any changes.
I think everything will be in place by the end of the year, but the Skywire testnet is taking a lot of development resources, so we will push it back if that means Skywire gets launched faster.
Also, then we are always improving things. So even after it “done”, its not really done. It always need more developers working on it and improving everything. We think “one second transaction are fast enough”, then someone comes in with a video game they want to put on blockchain and suddenly we need 200 ms. The demands are endless.
When all of this work is done, it will also mean that we have the best blockchain platform. So we need to have a marketing event built around this. It may not make sense to do it in the middle of Skywire launch mania, because we can only handle so many things at once.
News like this, we also have to make sure we release it into an upward market, when a lot of people are paying attention to innovations in blockchain technology. It would be wasted if we released big news or features, when people were not paying attention.
 
What's in store for Skycoin this year?
To many things. Everything. All at once. Its crazy.
We are opening a hardware incubator, which is the most exciting thing for me. I think we will not see the real applications of blockchain until we get blockchain into the physical world.
 
Where do you see this project in 5 years, where in 10 years? (What is your long term goal?)
We are moving so fast. I could not imagine that we did as much as we have, in such a short time. I cannot even keep up with how many things are in development now.
The goal this year is to demonstrate real world applications of blockchain technology. To bring blockchain to the physical world and make it tangible.
The goal in five years is to make blockchain obsolete and to create what comes after blockchain. We are experimenting with a thing we have started to call the “Fibre”. I do not think innovation will stop at blockchain.
The third generation of coins is going to be post-blockchain and want to be a leader in this area.
 
How long before I can buy a coffee with Skycoin?
As soon as I buy a coffee shop, lol.
 
When the community try to bring more people to skycoin, specially those with big money, we have to face the fact that the time locked distribution is not auditable (or it is?) is there any strategy to calm the doubts about the distribution method (the developers hold the majority of the coins/ are the only ones able to mint coins)
One of the advantages of blockchain is that all of the transaction are public. So the distribution schedule is auditable. Skycoin’s distribution is completely public. The distribution addresses are also public. So it is very transparent.
There is an api endpoint here with the distribution addresses and information updated in real time https://explorer.skycoin.net//api/coinSupply
 
In your blogs you are talking about the possibility of a ninja announcement that burns 80% tokens. That means it will be only 20 mil sky. So, in which circumstances devs would do that?
If we can find a closed loop, economic model for Skywire, that does not require a 15 or 20 year distribution period. Then we will burn the coins. Then the distribution would be capped at 30 million instead of 100 million.
Right now, we need the coins held aside for infrastructure investment, to grow the network and maintain the project.
There are some future components, that could eliminate the need for infrastructure fund and enable the network to be self-financing. Even if we get these components in place, what it means is that the infrastructructure fund will just allow us to grow even faster! So we might still not burn the coins.
You cannot underestimate what it will mean if we are investing 100 million dollars a year of coins into growth. This is the fuel that drives the growth of the ecosystem, so it does not make sense to “burn” the fuel. If there are more projects we can invest in, to grow faster, then we should do that.
 
In your opinion, what is the best exchange for buying Skycoin right now, and why? And on what other exchanges will Skycoin be listed, and when?
C2CX is good. Cryptopia is also good but withdrawals are slow.
We will be listed on larger exchanges this year, but cannot give details. We signed contracts but the exchanges grew from 1 million users to 8 million users in a few months, so their technical teams are overloaded. Listing a new coin can take 6 months after signing the agreement now. We are doing all we can to expedite the process.
 
Will the Kittycash platform be advertised across cat loving forums and the like?
LOL.
 
What will the value of legendary kittys be in 2019?
People are spending 1 or 2 Bitcoin per legendary kitty now. Kitty Cash had to stop selling legendary kitties, because fifty people were trying to buy each kitty and too many people were trying to buy them at once.
 
When will SKY be listed on new exchanges?
We were listed on four new exchanges this month. Wolfcrypto, Next, and two other exchanges. I cannot even keep track of it.
We signed contracts with the largest exchanges, but are still waiting for technical integration and we signed contracts not to disclosure information about specific exchange listings.
The exchanges are very overloaded right now, with technical problems from user growth and also from hundreds of coin ICOs that all want to be listed at once. Millions of people per month are registering on the Bitcoin exchanges now and the exchanges are overloaded. It can be a six month waiting list for listing now, after contracts have been signed, so we are just waiting at this point. However, big exchanges are coming soon.
submitted by MuSKYteer to skycoin [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I want to get a 7950, is there any major difference between manufactures or should I just get the cheapest one out there?

On a side note, what is a comparable Nvidia card?
submitted by just_bob to buildapc [link] [comments]

I had like 3 friends ask me how to build a PC in the past week so I made this to help them. Feel free to use or send me an e-mail if you want the txt file

(Reddit Edit: Help my improve the document with productive comments on what I got wrong or messed up! Im only human lol
Also a lot of this is supposed to be kinda humorous. I didn't think I had to say that but, hey, its the internet.
I appreciate the positive and productive comments! )
Beginners basic guide to building your own PC as of early 2018
(EDIT: Sorry for being a MSI/Corsair Fanboy)
Heres a collection of thoughts to consider when building your own personal PC
As always Id personally use PCPartPicker.com to configure your parts and for further thoughts on compatibility.
First off building a computer is 100% based around what you plan to use the computer for.
Here are a few uses and generic ideas of what to go for. Audio Editing: Lots of small tasks that need to be completed quickly without lag. - Fast Processor( >4GHZ) - Fast RAM (MHZ) -At least 16 gigs! - Fast Storage, SSD manditorily - M.2 or PCI for best performance. - Shitty Graphics card, graphics card there only to keep the cpu from doing other tasks when working. - Can be a few generations or years old. - Many screens for lots of plug in windows to be open Video Editing: Lots of large to render and files to read. - Multi core processor the more the merrier - SSD for fast read/write of large video files. - Insane graphics card, AMD graphics cards are debatibly better but the nvidia Quadro series are specific for video rendering. Gaming: No more than 4 cores intense graphics card - 92% of games are not coded for more than 4 cores so why spend the extra money for it. - SSD for quick load screens - Nvidia cards, 10 series, the higher the number the better. Titan cards for MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE! Coding: quick processor for lots of small tasks. Ergonomic peripherials? - Dear god please dont use a mechanical keyboard so that your coworkers dont kill you. Home office: Everything can be a few gens behind so you can get the best power per dollar spent. - Sorry that Gateway doesnt exist anymore. I guess try Dell... 
Parts (Expensive Legos)
CPU (tells things to go places and outputs data) Basically three main routes to go for: Intel, AMD, or ASIC. Intel - Gaming, Data center, Hackintosh Pros: Cooler, Faster speed (GHZ), short small tasks faster Cons: $$$$, less cores AMD - Gaming, Personal Computing, Large task processing Pros: Lots of cores, better price per performance, faster processing of large tasks Cons: Hot chips, large chips?, compatibility issues with MacOS. ASIC - "Application-specific integrated circuit" Pros: Does the task that they are made to do insanely efficently, great for mining. Cons: Literally does nothing else. Holy hell these are expensive, very hot (fans will get loud) CPU Cooler (Im a big fan) Most come with an in box cooler that are ok but please buy aftermarket. In Box - the free shitty cooler that comes with the processor. Pros: Free. Cons: Ugly, makes chip run hot, hard to clean Air cooler - oldest type of cooler but new designs are highly efficent. Pros: Only cooler that has the possibility of being 100% quiet, most likely cheaper Cons: large, if cooler isnt large enough for the chips thermal output the fans will be loud. Liquid - Custom pipes are beautiful, AIO is easy to install and offers similare performance. Pros: Looks cool, great temperatures, "quiet" Cons: Water pump has possibility of being loud, possible spills Phase Change - uses the technology of refridgerators to cool the chip Pros: Can overclock until the chip breaks. (whats colder than cold? ICE COLD!) Cons: Loud (compressor noise), Large pipes, just why.... Motherboard (the convienacnce store of computer parts) Really just about what type of I/O you want. - MAKE SURE FORM FACTOR FITS YOUR CASE! (or vice versa) - Look for PCI lanes for expansion. - How many graphic cards do you have? - PCI based interfaces? - PCI SSD? - PCI DAC? - PCI WIFI? - USbs? Network? Audio? - How many lanes of RAM? - DOES IT FIT YOUR PROCESSOR!?! (really tho) - M.2? - How many sata interaces? Good Brands: MSI, ASUS, Gigabyte Bad Brands: AS(s)Rock, Dell Memory (Dory) - The more the merrier - No less than 8gb for a functional windows machine (16 gb to never have a problem) - Use all the lanes your computer has to offer! the more lanes to access the faster the data can travel! -Imagine drinking a milkshake. If the straw is wider you can drink more of the milkshake than a skinny straw. - Faster MHZ for faster data access but give minimal performance differances - Please get ram with heat spreadders unles youre building a server with high airflow. - Make sure the type (DDR3 or DDR4) of RAM matches what your processomotherboard call for. Good Brands: Corsair, G.Skill, Ballistix Storage (Grandpa that remembers everythign about how things used to be but takes forever to learn a new tasK) Speed or massive storage? slower is cheaper. Golden ratio of speed/storage/price is 250-500 gb SSD and a 1+ tb disk drive. *Max speeds listed are for a single drive not RAID* Hard Disk Drives (HDD) - Cheapest and slowest - read/write speeds of < 0.5gb/s - 7200+ RPM or GTFO - Higher Speed drives can access data faster. - Do not move while powered up. physical parts will break. - Larger Cahche = faster Read/Write Speeds Pros: Cheap, Holds massive amounts of data Cons: Slower than molasses in a frezer Reputible Brands: Seagate, WD Solid State Drives (SSD) - necessity for quick boots and fast load screens (can only be re-written to so many times) - SATA based (2.5 inch)- Read/Write speeds capped @ 6 gb/s Pros: Most economical, form factor fits with old computers, Cons: "Slow" compared to other ssd's (but stil 12 times faster than a HDD) - M.2 based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 10 gb/s Pros: Size of a sick of gum! High End but not too expensive to be out of reach. Cons: Expensive for any size over 500 gb - PCI based - Read/Write speeds capped @ 20 gb/s for PCI3, x4 Pros: HOLY BANDWIDTH BATMAN! Faster than that little creepy ghost thats always in the corner of you eye Cons: You might have to take out a loan to buy one. *takes up a x4 PCI Lane* Reputible Brands: Samsung! Corsair, Plextor, Intel, Kingston, Crucial Video Card (that one kid that has thick glasses and is really good at math) - A regular old PCI card that handles all of the video rendering and output for your computer. - ASIC PCI cards. - The PCBs and chips are patented by two main companies but the differances come from line up and varying manufacturer cooling devices. - The more memory the better -NVIDIA (Team Green) Great for gaming, has specific card series for intensive rendering. Lazy driver updates. - Gaming - 900 series - Cheap - Low performance - Can play any video game made befrore 2010 on max settings - 1000 (ten) series - Expensive (thanks bitcoin miners...) - Great for VR! - Video Rendering -Quadro Series - Gaming and Rendering - Titan X - Maxwell based chip same as 900 series cards - Titan XP - Pascal based chip same as 10 series cards -AMD (Team Red) Underdog does the same thing but slighly worse and cheaper. (except video rendering) - Gaming - RX 400 series - Cheap - Hot - RX 500 series - Cheap - Ok at VR and deacent gaming frame rates. - Not bad but not particularly great either. - Video Rendering - Fire Pro series - Gaming and Rendering - Vega series -Good luck finding one to buy lmao Case (Fancy clothing for your parts!) - Similar to human clothing you want it to do a few main things really well with compromises for each extreme. - Durability - Steel - Incredibly durable - Creates Farady cage for components - Heavy af - Magnets, just magnets.... - Rust over time - Aluminium - Light - East to bend for modding or "physical maintenance" - Less likely to rust - Huzzah for Farady cages! - Plastic - Just dont - no electrical Ground - no faraday cage - Light AF! - Breath (Airflow) - positive internal airflow! - larger fans push the same amount of air with less speed/noise - Looks - Window? - RGB - Cool Paint? - Fit all your parts - graphics card length/ clearacne - support for liquid cooling raiators? - How many spots for HDD/SSDs - Motherboard format - Cable management! Power Supply (FIGHT MILK) - Rule of thumb: BUy Powersupply that outputs 1.5 times the wattage that you need. - You can walk further than you can you can run. - The PSU can casually output 50-75% power for much longer than at 90-100% (without failure) - If you never demand enough wattage for it to get hot the fan doesnt have to turn on therefore making it quieter. - Modular means you can remove/replace the cables from the PSU. Reputible Brands: Corsair, EVGA Optical Drive (motorized cup holder) - You can download most things today so I'd suggest against it unless you really NEED to watch/write DVD's/CD's Operating System (software that makes everything work) Windows (Always Updates) - Compatible with just about everything - Easy to learn to code on! - POS inital browser - Likely to get virus's Linux (Penguins are cute) - Unique - takes less resources to run - Barebones - Incredibly personalizable! - Compatibility issues with just about everything MacOS (Linux but more annoying) - It is legal! - Great for art and your grandma that doenst know how to use computers! - User friendly - Compatibility issues with various hardware - Confusing/Limiting coding structure Peripherials (cables everywhere!) - Keyboard (higer Polling rate is better) - Mechanical (key is pressed at an exact stroke length every time - Mouse (Higher Polling rate is better) - more buttons = better? - DPI (Dots Per Inch) - In theory, if a mouse has 1600 DPI, then, if you move your mouse one inch (2.54 cm), the mouse cursor will move 1600 pixels - Higher DPI the faster your cursor is able to be moved. - Monitor - In theory the human eye cant see faster than 60 frames per second. - Keep in mind Pixel ratio! - 4k screen that is 22inches will have more pixels in a square inch than a 4k screen that is 28 inches. - Interface? - DVI (Analog) - thumbscrews..... - can do two monitors with one port! - support for 4k - VGA (Analog) - thumbscrews... - max resolution is 1440p - Display Port (digital) - nice button clip - supports 4k - HDMI (Digital) - 1.2 or higer supports 4k - DAC/Speakers/Headphones - Dont even get me started - Microphone - Dont get me started PT.2 Other (other) - UPS (uninterruptible power supply) Just a battery that allows your computer to have some time if the power ever goes out so that you have time to save your work. - Cable Organization materials! - Zipties - velcro - LED LIGHTING! - Manditory - Extra/Better fans - More pressure, less woosh - IFIXIT Pro Tech Toolkit - becasue who buys just one torx wrench. - Cute kitten mousepad - Yes, it has to be a cat. Dont argue 
This is a very general entry into building computers and what you should buy/look for. If you have any questions/comments send me an e-mail!
-Zac Holley-
submitted by Zac_Attack13 to buildapc [link] [comments]

Introducing the LittleFury USB Powered Bitcoin Miner Prototype How Much Can You Make Mining Bitcoin With 6X 1080 Ti ... Testing of BitFury ASIC with BitCentury Prototype PCB Bitcoin Mining for Computer PC 2018 13 GPUs in ONE PC? – Mining Adventure Part 2 - YouTube

Bitcoin can be earned by purchasing them using dollars or other currencies, by selling goods or services and receiving payments via bitcoin or, by one of the more skillful methods, bitcoin mining. Bitcoin mining hardware, also known as mining rigs, are computing devices made specifically to “guess” the correct bitcoin block hash as quickly and with. ... (PCB) manufacturers for mounting. 5. Integrate the completed boards with other electronic components to create the final product. Evolution of Bitcoin Mining. From 2009, when the first Bitcoins were mined, to 2012, the Bitcoin mining network hash rate increased from MHash/s (10 6) to THash/s (10 12) to today’s EHash/sec ... Replacement Controller Circuit Board for Antminer S9 Miner Control PCB Repair. $148.95. 1 sold. Sponsored Listings. Bitmain Antminer S9 13.5 TH/s w/psu !BULK ORDER DISCOUNT! Bitcoin BTC ASIC Miner. ... 16 TH/s Dragonmint T1 ASIC / 25 Hour Bitcoin Mining Rental / Contract Lease . $6.00. 5 X 3FT 14 AWG NEMA 6-15P to C13 Power Cord PSU APW3++ 15A ... Bitcoin mining is a key technical com - ponent of ensuring that the Internet has su,cient time to attain consensus on new blockchain updates. Miners must *nd a nonce value that makes a dou-ble SHA-256 hash of the block’s header be less than (65535 << 208)/di!culty. Because SHA-256 is designed to be non- ...

[index] [2362] [5577] [5625] [5226] [1306] [3412] [1477] [599] [26] [140]

Introducing the LittleFury USB Powered Bitcoin Miner Prototype

We finally rectify the mistakes made in Mining Adventure Part 1, and show you guys how you can build a rig to mine cryptocurrencies like Monero, and Zcash. F... Bitcoin Mining Software ( New Update August 2018 ) - Duration: 9:44. Steve Cold 2,157 views. 9:44. GET DAILY BTC with this Bitcoin Mining Software - Duration: 2:05. The LittleFury is a the world's fastest USB powered Bitcoin miner from BitCentury that features 2 BitFury ASICs for an anticipated performance of up to 4GH/s when powered from a USB3 port. Order ... Get an additional $10 in Bitcoins from Coinbase when purchasing through my referral link http://fredyen.com/get/Bitcoins Raspberry Pi: http://amzn.to/2l6yrW7... The virtual goldrush to mine Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies leads us to Central Washington state where a Bitcoin mine generates roughly $70,000 a day min...

http://binarycent-review.forex-ratings.eu