Slush - The World's Leading Startup Event & Community of ...
Slush - The World's Leading Startup Event & Community of ...
Bitcoin Mining Pool Bitcoin.com
Best Bitcoin BTC Mining Pools 2019 List - BLOCKCHAINTALK.ORG
Bitcoin Forum - Index - bitcointalk.org
Slush's Pool hacked -- Some bitcoins stolen : Bitcoin
Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review
Asicpower AP9-SHA256 Review
Bitmain is regarded as one of the most influential companies in the ASIC mining industry. It is estimated that they have manufactured approximately 53% of all mining equipment.Without including their mining profits, that’s around $140 million dollars in sales. These figures are staggering, but Bitmain’s monopoly of the Bitcoin ASIC market may come to an end, following the release of PowerAsic’s asicpower AP9-SHA256.
About the asicpower AP9-SHA256
Designed with brand new technology and boasting 94 TH/s per miner, the AP(-SHA256 is the most powerful and efficient Bitcoin miner to date.PowerAsic claims they spent $12 million dollars on research, development, and prototypes.PowerAsic also noted that their miners take advantage of ASICBOOST, an exploit of Bitcoin’s algorithm which improves mining efficiency by 20%.An unusual approach separate Powerasic’s miner to the other manufactures is the implementation of copper heat-sink claimed to have a superior thermal conductivity 69% better than aluminium. Don’t take their words for it but confirm the facts are correct on widely well known and published science documents as this one.The first batch of miners were announced and made available for order in August of 2019, with start scheduled for shipment in September, 2019. Powerasic claims that the machines are around 40 percent more productive than the most proficient ASIC on the market, Bitmain’s Antminer S17.According to PowerAsic, they started a mining project with the aim to bring much needed competition to the market…We want to ‘make SHA256 great again.Sitting at the hefty price of $2,795.00, the powerasic AP9-SHA256 is far from affordable for the average person. Fortunately, due to the newly born rivalry between Bitmain and Powerasic, the price will probably lower with time and competition.The power supply for this unit is included and integrated in the top-box also including the controler card as a one unit. You will also get standard power cable, network cable, manual and software in the packet. In comparison to the price of the Antminer S17 , the Powerasic AP9-Sha256 is a better value.
The integrated PSU 3300W has a inputVoltage 220V 50Hz 30A. There are 2 fan 40mm., 1 fan 60mm to keep it cool and the power cable 3 legs following CEE 7 standard.Professional mining hardware runs optimally at 220-240V, hence why mining farms step down their own electricity supply to 220-240V. Note that 220V current is only found outside of the US – American outlets are 110V by default. Unless you want to hire an electrician, this could cause some people trouble adapt to the eficient and recomended 220V power needed, still 110V will get the job done, but they are not ideal for optimum mining performance.
Thanks to the powerasic AP9-HA256’s new 7nm generation of ASIC chips, the AP9-SHA256 has become the most electrically-efficient miner on the market.Consuming merely 30.J/TB, or 2860W from the wall, the 16T is 30% more electrically-efficient than the Antminer S17.
Powerasic ’s new ASIC technology is impressive. When compared to its closest competitor, the Antminer S17, the powerasic AP9-HA256 is the clear winner. It hashes at 94 TH/s, as opposed to the S17’s 56 TH/s. Moreover, the the AP9-HA256 consumes 30J/GH, whereas the S17 consumes 39-45J/TB.The difference in power consumption is miniscule, but when it comes to large-scale mining, the the AP9-HA256’s edge will drastically increase the profitability of a mining operation. This ASIC is profitable not only for mining on a large scale, but for the individual miner as well.Take a look at the projected mining profitability of a single miner:Note that is appears profitable even with high electricity costs ($0.1 per KW/h). With $0.05 / KW/h it’s even more profitable:📷Each powerasic AP9-HA256 will generate about $6,009 per year (calculated with 1 BTC=$10,141.5). Mining profitability may vary. You can usethis free profitability calculator to determine your projected earnings.
Is powerasic AP9-HA256 a Scam?
There is been a lot of talk on Twitter that powerasic AP9-HA256 is a scam. It appears it is not, as many users are already claiming to have received their miners.Slush, the creator ot Slush Mining Pool and the TREZOR hardware wallet, claims on Twitter that he has seen units and knows people who have had their miners delivered:
Verdict: Is The Antminer S17 Outdated?
When the first batch of Bitmain’s Antminer S17 ASICs reached the eager hands of miners, they were all the rage. The S17 was renowned as the most efficient ASIC miner on the market. Many used the S17 as the industry’s golden standard.Up until the launch of the powerasic AP9-HA256, it was the golden standard.But, now?Things have changed.Not only is the powerasic AP9-HA256 more powerful than its predecessor from Bitmain, but also more efficient, and therefore, more profitable.Ever since the announcement of the new ASIC, there was widespread speculation of its legitimacy – and rightly so.The Bitcoin community has been plagued with small, phony companies manipulating images of preexisting antminers as a ploy to hype up their fake products. Nevertheless, powerasic AP9-HA256 is taking things seriously, and their first batch of miners have lived up to expectations.The fact of the matter is, Bitmain’s most powerful and efficient antminer has been dethroned by the new reigning king of ASICs: The powerasic AP9-HA256.
Bitmain has dominated the ASIC market since its inception in 2013.There are a few other companies producing ASICs. However, before the creation of PowerAsics AP9-SHA256., Bitmain was the only company with a proven track record that sold efficient miners directly to the public.Powerasic AP9-HA256 has the potential to bring Bitmain’s monopoly to an end. Powerasic AP9-HA256 has a bright future ahead of them. Now that Bitmain has noteworthy competition, it will be interesting to see how it affects the market. The powerasic AP9-HA256 is the best option (for now) for anyone getting started with mining. Powerasic’s innovation should force other ASIC producers to innovate and force other companies to release new miners with better efficiency. So whether you’re buying a miner now or soon, you’re likely to benefit from the development of this new miner. For more, Visit Us: https://asicpower.net/product.php
UASF = user activated soft fork. Bitcoin works by hash rate. "true" or "valid" Bitcoin is based on whoever has 51%+ of the hash power as well as the longest chain of work (which automatically means the one with more hash power since they would be mining blocks faster). Hash power is the ONLY metric that can't be faked. Bip 148 (aka uasf), is an attempt to force segwit into bitcoin by running nodes that will block non-segwit nodes/transactions. Note, segwit capped at 40% signalling although it required 95% consensus to be activated as a soft fork. The UASF'ers, aka the SJW's of cryptocurrencies, alleged that miners were blocking segwit from being adopted. They created a whole FUD (fear uncertainty and doubt) movement about how miners were rejecting segwit so miners can run Asicboost to make more money. Jihan has gone on record in an interview stating he wishes this were true as he'd love to be able to save millions of dollars a month on electricity at the press of a button (paraphrasing). UASFers also mislead people into running bip 148 nodes with threats. They fool people by thinking that if they DON'T run bip 148 nodes, you'll be forked off of the main network. The Data 90 Percent of miners signalling for Segwit2x aka New York Agreement This means at best, UASF has 10% of the global hash rate. This also means UASF is unlikely to survive the difficulty adjustment as it'll take weeks or months of mining with so little hash power backing this alt coin. verify yourself here More Lies UASFers fake node count They love to boast their support for uasf with constant screenshots and posts of how they are running a bip 148 node. However, like I mentioned before, hash rate is the only metric that can't be faked. Do you see those swings around week 22? that is NOT organic growth. Node count cannot and would not spike up and down that quickly. verify yourself here The Truth They really only have about half of the node count they claim. And again, nodes alone do not make up a coin. You NEED hash power behind it, especially if we're talking bitcoin. The most secure network in the world because of the hashing power behind it. verify yourself here TL:DR - the SJW UASF movement has at best 10% hash rate, when in reality, only slush pool is signalling for bip 148 and they total 1% of the global hash. with 90% support for the new york agreement, a split is very unlikely.
No, I love it here it is so professional and the mods really seem helpful - 19 (9.4%)
No Way, where would I go to scam people? - 1 (0.5%)
Yes, It is offensive that BFL advertises here - 11 (5.4%)
No way, where would I buy my illegal securities? - 2 (1%)
Yes, I do not like that Tradefortress runs an illegal bank here - 2 (1%)
No, I like that I can come to this site and do criminal things - 2 (1%)
Yes, I'm sick and tired of the mods not doing anything - 15 (7.4%)
No, I like that they hold 6000 BTC from the community and still allow scamming - 12 (5.9%)
But then I couldn't buy my drugs anymore - 1 (0.5%)
What? Where would we go? - 11 (5.4%)
If you don't ban Viceroy I'll just scream - 32 (15.8%)
Yes - 49 (24.3%)No - 34 (16.8%)Total Voters: 202
We've been losing good members for months now. The post about a dismal level of discourse is telling. If things do not change in these forums we will continue to lose smart contributors like Jason. For those of you who do not know what Jason did for the community let me tell you. He, along with Gusti and a small group of other engineers, tried to develop a public mining asic chip. While they didn't complete their task the effort was nothing short of amazing. When I arrived on the scene almost exactly two years ago it was a small and fun community of computer geeks. Like half of you we came to mine bitcoin. We were mining on deepbit and slush's pool and using the brand new cgminer, it was awesome. People were helpful and kind and it was a community. But things have changed. Part of the problem comes from the traffic. The admins claim they just do not have the time to manage all the noise. With more than 100,000 registered members and sockpuppets their task must be daunting. But that's why people gave them money, right? It recently came to light that Theymos is now paying the moderators and that he is distributing the $600,000 worth of bitcoin the forums have collected from donations in addition to the $130,000 per year the forums generate by running BFL ads. Now I'm not here to tell Theymos what to do with HIS money but I'm tired of the lack of support from he and the team and the fact that they hold more than 1/2 million dollars and are doing little to improve the forums is embarassing so I'm calling them out and starting a new forum.
-- Viceroy from Bitcointalk.org Bitcoin Talk 2.0 Here we would like to present a new Bitcoin Forum as requested of some respectable members from the BitcoinTalk community. I am not Theymos. However, it's just pathetic for me to see how Theymos treats family members in the community in a very unprofessional manner. Here are some answers to response to Viceroy from BitcoinTalk. Brand:
No room for alternate crypto currencies. Here we only talk about Bitcoin.
We strongly support helping people who live in remote countries.
We would like to open up more opportunity for third world countries to use not just Bitcoin, but technology as a whole.
Donation will be split into 2, one for the development of the website, and the rest will be going to help third words countries specially those who are in calamity.
Transperent & Anonymous, your choice
This website is based on Xenforo
No Google Authenticator due to everyone doesn't have a smart phone.
Integrated with facebook for the sake of usability. But you can choose to create a new account from an email.
The Rule will be specifically applied on each category. There is also a rule for the community as a whole as well.
We mainly follow rules and guideline from BitcoinTalk but the support will be more active.
All moderators are volunteers. Paid are not acceptable because we doing this from our hearts, not for wealth.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole (176 points, 114 comments)
"You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
"Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
"The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
u/jessquit to u/nullc "You're so fucking shameless, devoting your career to crippling one of the most disruptive inventions since the Internet to please your investment team. Watching you go down in flames will be one of the great moments in computer science. Your legacy will be a monument of shame" (214 points, 40 comments)
Suggestion for new terminology. Instead of saying "small blocks" vs "big blocks", we could say: "centrally planned blocksize" vs "market-based blocksize". This will make it clear that some solutions are based on markets and economics, and other solutions are based on central planning. (195 points, 64 comments)
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both. (180 points, 35 comments)
Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM. (153 points, 42 comments)
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them? (149 points, 66 comments)
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt (124 points, 80 comments)
u/Luke-Jr: "The best available here is currently 5Mb down + 512k up DSL." // u/TruthReasonOrLies: "You seem to want to hold back the network development and growth to support those who are the least likely to run full nodes or mining." (114 points, 45 comments)
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime (90 points, 41 comments)
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life. (88 points, 26 comments)
the systematic censorship policy of r\bitcoin is one of the clearest proof of the technical inferiority of blockstream core prescribed solutions : if they were just better , there would be no need for such policy . (219 points, 74 comments)
Another successful hard fork by Ethereum occurred today. Protocol upgrades are possible. Don't listen to lies from entrenched interests that say otherwise. (202 points, 78 comments)
I think if it comes down to it, Core would rather remain in control, even if it means introducing a small blocksize increase, as opposed to losing control entirely. We should not lose sight of our larger goals no matter what carrots they throw our way: We need a new, un-corrupt dev team. (177 points, 65 comments)
Bitcoin Core Devs can't just say the price of Bitcoin should be stuck at $100 per coin. The market decides. Just like Core shouldn't say the size of a block is stuck at 1MB. The market should decide! Take centrally planned actors OUT of the equation. This is Bitcoin-- Not the Federal Reserve. (145 points, 39 comments)
Miner Jiang Zhou'er: "I can conclude with great confidence: SegWit will never ever be activated. Even in 75% or 51% scenarios it will not be alive. ..some people are destined to be nailed up on the pillar of humiliation." (95 points, 63 comments)
We need more exclusive content for /btc with watermarks stating against censorship in /bitcoin. The new content will be effective in spreading the word! (79 points, 32 comments)
No one (except the market) knows what the price of Bitcoin should be, just like no one (except the market) knows what the size of blocks should be. Bitcoin Unlimited allows a market-decided blocksize. Bitcoin Core allows a centrally planned blocksize. (74 points, 20 comments)
It is likely a Core-affiliated extremist will attack pools mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks. I recommend Bitcoin.com Pool goes live ASAP, with over 10% hashrate, so we have multiple pools for redundancy. 10-12% hashrate is not enough in the face of attackers who try to artificially activate Segwit. (64 points, 52 comments)
nullc is actively trying to delete Satoshi from history. First he assigned all satoshi commits on github to himself, then he wanted to get rid of the whitepaper as it is and now notice how he never says "Satoshi", he says "Bitcoin's Creator". by blockstreamcoin (243 points, 243 comments)
Censorship test from Gavin: post two positive things one about BU and another about SW, and see what happens by chakrop (240 points, 69 comments)
206 points: ViaBTC's comment in I'm Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC, Ask Me Anything!
118 points: solex1's comment in Gavin Andresen on Twitter: "I'm happy to see Bitcoin Unlimited gaining popularity, and hope their decentralized market-based approach gets adopted."
05-07 06:31 - 'That's ridiculous u/gavinandresen has incited anger and hatred against the Core devs and has personally flamed many Core developers, in an unprofessional and discourteous manner. He's refused to listen and accused Core developer...' by /u/pb1x removed from /r/Bitcoin within 265-270min
Jonathan Toomim on Dec 28 2015: I traveled around in China for a couple weeks after Hong Kong to visit with miners and confer on the blocksize increase and block propagation issues. I performed an informal survey of a few of the blocksize increase proposals that I thought would be likely to have widespread support. The results of the version 1.0 census are below. My brother is working on a website for a version 2.0 census. You can view the beta version of it and participate in it at https://bitcoin.consider.it. If you have any requests for changes to the format, please CC him at m at toom.im. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0 Or a snapshot for those behind the GFW without a VPN: http://toom.im/files/consensus_census.pdf HTML follows: Miner Hashrate BIP103 2 MB now (BIP102) 2 MB now, 4 MB in 2 yr 2-4-8 (Adam Back) 3 MB now 3 MB now, 10 MB in 3 yr BIP101 F2Pool 22% N/A Acceptable Acceptable Preferred Acceptable Acceptable Too fast AntPool 23% Too slow Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable N/A N/A Too fast Bitfury 18% N/A Acceptable Probably/maybe Maybe N/A Probably too fast Too fast BTCC Pool 11% N/A Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable Acceptable, I think N/A KnCMiner 7% N/A Probably? Probably? "We like 2-4-8" Probably? N/A N/A BW.com 7% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Slush 4% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 21 Inc. 3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Eligius 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A BitClub 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A GHash.io 1% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Misc 2% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Certainly in favor 74% 56% 63% 33% 22% Possibly in favor 81% 81% 81% 40% 33% 0% Total votes counted 81% 81% 81% 40% 51% 63% F2Pool: Blocksize increase could be phased in at block 400,000. No floating-point math. No timestamp-based forking (block height is okay). Conversation was with Wang Chun via IRC. AntPool/Bitmain: We should get miners and devs together for few rounds of voting to decide which plan to implement. (My brother is working on a tool which may be useful for this. More info soon.) The blocksize increase should be merged into Bitcoin Core, and should not be implemented in an alternate client like BitcoinXT. A timeline of about 3 months for the fork was discussed, though I don't know if that was acceptable or preferable to Bitmain. Conversation was mostly with Micree Zhan and Kevin Pan at the Bitmain HQ. Jihan Wu was absent. Bitfury: We should fix performance issues in bitcoind before 4 MB, and we MUST fix performance issues before 8 MB. A plan that includes 8 MB blocks in the future and assumes the performance fixes will be implemented might be acceptable to us, but we'll have to evaluate it more before coming to a conclusion. 2-4-8 "is like parachute basejumping - if you jump, and was unable to fix parachute during the 90sec drop - you will be 100% dead. plan A) [multiple hard forks] more safe." Conversation was with Alex Petrov at the conference and via email. KnC: I only had short conversations with Sam Cole, but from what I can tell, they would be okay with just about anything reasonable. BTCC: It would be much better to have the support of Core, but if Core doesn't include a blocksize increase soon in the master branch, we may be willing to start running a fork. Conversation was with Samson Mow and a few others at BTCC HQ. The conversations I had with all of these entities were of an informal, non-binding nature. Positions are subject to change. BIP100 was not included in my talks because (a) coinbase voting already covers it pretty well, and (b) it is more complicated than the other proposals and currently does not seem likely to be implemented. I generally did not bring up SegWit during the conversations I had with miners, and neither did the miners, so it is also absent. (I thought that it was too early for miners to have an informed opinion of SegWit's relative merits.) I have not had any contact with BW.com or any of the smaller entities. Questions can be directed to j at toom.im. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151227/824ec2c9/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151227/824ec2c9/attachment-0001.sig original: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012137.html
Posted on Bitcoin Talk by Slush opperator... QuoteThe pool has been hacked. Fortunately I noticed it fast enough, so I made database snapshot The Bitcoin.com mining pool has the lowest share reject rate (0.15%) we've ever seen. Other pools have over 0.30% rejected shares. Furthermore, the Bitcoin.com pool has a super responsive and reliable support team. P2Pool.org: This relatively small pool was created in 2011 by programmer Forrest Voight. It claims to be "the most transparent mining pool on the planet" because it distributes all pool data for the public to view. As of September 2014. it had mined more than 78.000 bitcoin ( £13.4 million or $20.9 million at current prices). 0.47% Solo Ckpool Other Bitcoin sites. Bitcoin Forum Bitcoin Stack Exchange Bitcoin Magazine. Download Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Core is the backbone of the Bitcoin network. Almost all Bitcoin wallets rely on Bitcoin Core in one way or another. If you have a fairly powerful computer that is almost always online, you can help the network by running Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin Pooled Mining (BPM), better known as Slush's pool, is the oldest mining pool, and the first known to be publicly available.Slush's pool was announced on November, 27, 2010 under the name Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server and operated on a share strategy that involved an artificially low difficulty method that has since been determined to be vulnerable to cheating.
Bitcoin Mining Stratum V2 - Behind the scenes with Slush Pool's CEOs & Square Crypto's Matt Corallo
I'm new to bitcoin mining so be nice! I purchased to BFL asic miners for $20 off of ebay. Combined hash power is 120Gh/s. I have an antminer s5 coming. Anyways here's my video on how I set ... Slushpool bitcoin mining pool - worker setup tutorial - Duration: 5:10. DudeTV 53,887 views. ... ANTMINER S7 with SLUSH POOL PAYOUT - Duration: 1:34. CALI CRYPTO 8,208 views. Stratum V2 is next generation protocol for pooled mining in Bitcoin, designed by Slush Pool CEOs Pavel Moravec and Jan Čapek in collaboration with Matt Corallo of Square Crypto and other industry ... Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. The Miner I am Running on Slush Pool: ... Datadash and Richard Heart talk all things Bitcoin and Ethereum in Singapore - Duration: 1:06:31. Richard Heart 16,605 views. New; 1:06:31.