VMC announces 28nm ASIC chips with 24.5 TH/sec miners to ...

Video review of a 28nm Bitcoin Miner from VMC

Video review of a 28nm Bitcoin Miner from VMC submitted by lukerayes08 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Super cheap 1Th units are available on 3-14-14 for $5k .....wow..the Walmart effect is taking hold real fast.

I am pretty sure that with escrow and credit card purchase its safe to take the risk. I am wishing I would have not spent the money I have on miners and bough this. http://www.aliexpress.com/item/1TH-S-asic-bitcoin-miner-28nm-bitcoin-mining-machine-28nm-bitcoin-miner-pre-order-now-ship/1656827530.html
submitted by apollojmr to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Major jump in the price of SHA-256 altcoins?

Now I'm somewhat new to altcoins, but here is my basic understanding of their future:
Litecoin will just sort of do it's thing, and be sorta stable and just gradually rise and will stay obscure and it's scrpt based hashing method means the previous GPU miners can live like it's summer 2011 and hope maybe there's an April 2013 that will eventually happen for them. SHA-256 based scripts, and mainly terracoin, ppcoin, and possibly feathercoin will not really do anything notable except around now, Bitcoin ASIC miners are reaching their expiration date and thus moved to a potentially profitable network, and we'll really see a jump when the 28nm Bitcoin miners that are going out next month hit their "expiration date".
So am I missing something, or is this about correct?
submitted by SquareKite to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips?

Greg Maxwell remembers.
submitted by BeijingBitcoins to btc [link] [comments]

KJ-012 $199.99 Adba S5~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner

KJ-012 $199.99 Adba S5~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner submitted by ebocoolinc to u/ebocoolinc [link] [comments]

Antminer S5 1150 г 28NM BM1384 Bitcoin SHA256 ASIC miner Bitcoin биткоин...

Antminer S5 1150 г 28NM BM1384 Bitcoin SHA256 ASIC miner Bitcoin биткоин... submitted by SuspiciousDiscussion to u/SuspiciousDiscussion [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Discussion • Antminer S7 ~4.73TH/s @ .25W/GH 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner

submitted by btcforumbot to BtcForum [link] [comments]

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips? /r/btc

Remember when Bitcoin miners attacked bitcoin by moving from 28nm chips to 14nm chips? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Total Cyberwar : AntMiner S5 ~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC #Bitcoin #Miner - #CyberWar: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum http://bit.ly/2gtOmhs

Total Cyberwar : AntMiner S5 ~1155Gh/s @ 0.51W/Gh 28nm ASIC #Bitcoin #Miner - #CyberWar: Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum http://bit.ly/2gtOmhs submitted by PatrolX to TotalCyberwar [link] [comments]

SF100, the first 28nm Dual-Mode Miner is accepting pre-order now /r/Bitcoin

SF100, the first 28nm Dual-Mode Miner is accepting pre-order now /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

After two huge increases (10.44% and 8.77%) difficulty is expected to grow another 13.26%

See https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
What's driving this?
submitted by bobthesponge1 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%)

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%) submitted by Dansuke to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Obelisk's Sia ASICs - Full Details

https://obelisk.tech
Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working.
The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018.
Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule.
The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less.
The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later.
We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much.
We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference.
The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month).
The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk.
Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers.
Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies.
We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

The mystery of Halong Mining

Halong Mining was a mysterious mining rig maker, whose DragonMint rig was shilled by Blockstream as the "Bitmain killer" in 2017. The DragonMint chips were supposed to use 7nm technology (which should be much more energy-efficient than Bitmain's 28nm technology), and would be manufactured by Samsung.
However, there was a total lack of details about the company, even the most basic ones -- such as which continent it was located on.
Recall that, shortly before the DragonMint announcement, Blockstream had unleashed a virulent smear campaign ("Antbleed") against Bitmain, because Bitmain's chips allegedly had an optimization feature called ASICboost that could increase throughput by (maybe) 10% or so. However, that feature was not enabled in Bitmain's mining rigs; the maker claimed that the gains would not be worth it.
Eventually rumors came out that Halong Mining was in fact re-selling unannounced miners made by Innosilicon. IIRC the claim of 7nm technology could not be confirmed and was forgotten; they were only a few percent more efficient than Bitmain's, and -- surprise -- they had ASICboost enabled. Slush Pool, a longstanding Blockstream supporter, promptly announced support for ASICboost miners.
Now we learn that Blockstream itself bought ~4000 rigs from Innosilicon, which were delivered to the US in Jul/2018. Those rigs should do 80 PH/s of hashing power (the total hashpower now is ~45'000 PH/s).
I find this story fishy (ok, what bitcoin-related story isn't?). Here is a theory:
  1. "Halong Mining" was conceived by Blockstream to exploit ASICboost in order to "kill" their enemy Bitmain, and they were quite pissed off when they discovered that Bitmain's chips already had it. Hence the fury of the "Antbleed" campaign.
  2. The plan flopped because Samsung's 7nm chips would be too expensive. So "Halong" (Blockstream) bought some pre-release rigs from Innosilicon, using 28nm chips that were basically clones of Biytmain's (or even obtained from Bitmain), to satisfy the clients of Halong's pre-sale.
  3. Eventually Innosilicon started selling the rigs under his own name. However, they would not sell because of the price slump and the non-impressive performance.
  4. So Blockstream had to buy a shipload of Innosilicon rigs, to pay for their development.
  5. Those rigs are still stored in some warehouse, waiting for the price to rise again.
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

What if we (Classic Supporters) could directly support KNC?

Instead of donating funds to the Classic Mining Fund, what if we were able to directly contribute to KNC. After all, they are obviously making a profit and competitive with other miners.
Sending them funds to invest in new equipment should increase their profits and allow them to buy more equipment and further increase their share.
By taking market share over time, by continued support from Classic supporters, this would hopefully start to cause some concern to other miners.
Let's face it, the only guys that are solid in their support out of the whole mining community have been KNC. Wouldn't it be better that they have a bigger share?
I don't have any association with them, I don't know their history. I only know I read a piece a while ago by a KNC miner and he seemed spot on in his assessment of what bitcoin should be. And I know that they have been the only rock solid support for Classic.
There would need to be some sort of arrangement that the funds and profits are used to by more equipment (for the foreseeable future).
submitted by papabitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

My response to the Dev Fork decision

Since I penned the original Community Fork proposal, I felt the need to address the decision to fork and the medium post attempting to justify the radical departure from what the community sought. The italics are quotes from the post, the following text is mine.

The first several statements are in regard to what happened in January.

The core developers ultimately decided against forking.
--
This statement sets the table by clearly laying out what happened in January with a statement the project is centralized as Nebulous went against the community in not forking then. The same holds true on today's statement.

Decentralization is valuable because there is nobody in control, and we weren’t comfortable releasing an update that threatened to rip the community in half.
--
In other words, we asserted control and made a highly centralized decision to protect the community. It is Orwellian in attempting to explain that war is peace.

ironically the people leaving in the largest droves were those who most aggressively opposed the fork during the earlier debates
--
Even if evidence existed to determine this, it's doubtful. The people most active against the fork were A3 purchasers and those people had ROI to meet. Even if they decided the Discord was a bit toxic, they still fulfilled a role securing the network. The author frequently makes assertions that cannot be defended with fact.

Sia’s biggest supporters and believers were the ones that got hit hardest by the mining catastrophe, and despite this loss, they were also the ones who stuck through the hardest times.
--
What did they lose? Obelisks wouldn't ship for another 9 months. How was it a catastrophe? Was the network ever at risk? The use of hyperbole here is indicative of the lack of a serious argument.

They (innosilicon) have the only 14nm miner on the market, and as such they have the only rig capable of competing. Without competition, there is no price pressure, and it seems that there is close to, if not above, a 100% markup on their hardware. For every machine that gets sold, Innosilicon makes enough profit to produce a machine for themselves to mine.
--
The suggestion is that a highly competent manufacturer fairly competing to create the best possible solution is somehow in the wrong. It then goes on to suggest that gaining a financial reward for being highly competent is somehow wrong and further intimates the profits must be reinvested into working the Sia chain. In fact, Innosilicon didn't have an overly large hashrate until the discussion of a fork seemed inevitable. It seems reasonable they dumped the totality of their inventory online because they would not be able to sell them once a fork occurred. Arguing against capitalism and the freedom to earn profits is a dangerous slope, perhaps revealing underlying political motivations of the author.

For an ASIC that is going to obsolete existing hardware, margins can be anywhere from 50% to 100%. The story is different however for ASICs that intend to compete without being strong enough to become the new monopoly. For these machines, margins are likely to be less than 25% because the presence of competition heavily forces prices downwards.
--
The argument here is to somehow seek to fight Moore's Law. Just as GPUs defeated CPUs and ASICs defeated GPUs, the strongest ASICs will prevail. There are several manufacturers that can be sought out to compete if the result is a single dominant model. More importantly, Innosilicon sells the majority of it's mining rigs to decentralize the hashrate. A single dominant manufacturer does not guarantee or even make more likely the hashrate will centralize. Finally, seeking to protect less than competent or financially competitive manufacturers runs counter to much of the Satoshi manifesto.

When a manufacturer is also a miner, there is an incentive against manufacturing and selling more machines.
--
The Bitmain financials clearly show the company makes the overwhelming amount of their profitability on miner sales, not mining. This is likely true for nearly all coins as mining quickly becomes close to breakeven. Even the author later admits the margins on hardware make for a lucrative business model.

High manufacturer diversity is currently limited by the extreme barriers to entry...we like to see manufacturers that share the knowledge and encourage a vibrant competitive environment.
--
In no industry that I am aware of is sharing of proprietary knowledge common and especially not in highly competitive and extremely capital intensive industries. It's beyond naive to believe this should be a goal. The post continues with other hurdles that no rational enterprise would accept without some sort of regulatory framework. It cannot be fairly policed as we are seeing here. The author has made several statements based on conjecture and formulated a punishment with the entities having no rights of appeal or even an advance guideline to follow that would have avoided the issues.

For the Sia network, an important line was crossed when secret ASIC projects superseded a public project that had substantial community investment.
--
This may be accurate to the author but such a line was never laid out for the public and as such, crossing it cannot be penalized unjustly.

Sia did not fork initially because there was a lot of confusion, a lot of emotion, and a great fear that the heavy conflicts of interest would cause the development team to make the wrong decision. Since then, there has been time for emotions to cool, for level heads to prevail, and for a second community fork proposal to come forward. Unlike the first fork proposal by the community, this second proposal experienced widespread support and virtually no opposition at all from regular members of the community.
--
This is accurate in stating the Community Fork proposal enjoyed widespread support. it is totally off base in suggesting the Dev Fork even resembles the CF. This is using the community as a human shield due to the overwhelming lack of an argument. My guess is that the Dev Fork would not meet with anything near the kind of support the CF enjoyed.

Sia is forking today to reprimand the current ASIC monopoly for the damage it did to the Sia community, to make whole the supporters of Sia’s community ASIC project, and to send a clear message to all future Sia ASIC manufacturers: we will not tolerate an abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying there is one final boss at Sia and you made him mad to the point that he must now "reprimand" you. The items characterized as abusive were never outlined in advance and are highly debatable as to whether they actually are abusive, but again, Final Boss.

We fully expect that the 28nm Obelisk ASICs will be replaced by a 16nm chip from another manufacturer, who will become the new manufacturing monopoly for Sia... the Sia community is not afraid to take action a second time to break a parasitic or abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Hopefully any manufacturer understands the shifting sands that exist within the Sia leadership could decide virtually any action to be harmful as there has been zero harm done up to now. There have been no attacks, no overt centralization and plenty of supporters own/mine with these company's devices.

Sia is an ungoverned blockchain. There is no built-in mechanism on the Sia network to change the consensus rules, and there is no mechanism in the software that the developers can use to force people to upgrade. The only way that Nebulous can encourage a fork is to release new code, and then encourage people to upgrade.
This leaves people with the opportunity to reject the upgrade, and to instead continue using the old software and the old blockchain. If enough people rally around the old software, there could be a network split, and Sia could divide into two blockchains, in the same way that Ethereum split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and in the same way that Bitcoin became Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
At Nebulous, we view these cryptocurrency splits as one of the most powerful innovations of the blockchain space. Under traditional governance structures, a single decision gets made and everyone has to live with that decision. But when the network is able to split, you can get solutions where two groups of people with incompatible demands can both get what they want.
We will be structuring the Sia hardfork code to enable a group of dissenters to easily split off and be on a separate blockchain where the hardfork was never implemented. The hardfork will be released as its own release, v1.3.6, where the only code updated is a handful of lines of code + tests required to implement the hardfork. The code will be implemented in a way that easily allows a dissenting group to remove the hardfork code and yet continue merging changes that are made to the primary Sia repo. So long as the siafund ownership is maintained on this fork, members of the dissenting community will be welcome in the Sia community, on the Sia discord, on the subreddit, and will be able to receive support and help directly from the Nebulous support staff.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about a potential Sia network split is that all users will be able to continue to use their current files that they have on Sia. Uploads and downloads will continue to work, no matter what side of the split you are on, and so long as the minority side of the split has enough hosts (50–80 is what most users will require), the repair mechanisms of the Sia network will be able to repair your files from across both networks and ensure that your files continue working into the future. If the minority side of the fork does not have enough hosts, users will have time (most users will have several weeks) after the split to download their files and find an alternative way to back them up.
--
These paragraphs are simply amazing. The author appears to be goading people resistant to his iron control over the project to continue the legacy chain. While this makes sense if you are simply building a protocol and have no interest in marketing and selling the tech to say, Fortune 1000 companies, it is a terrible message if you do plan to. You are seeking community schism, making a competitive environment for hosting when hosting is already horribly unprofitable and seeking to sow chaos in how the network evolves into the future. The logical approach would be to let dedicated foes seek out the info on their own if there is a desire to work the legacy chain, not encourage it. It continues to show the author, while a strong technologist is a weak business individual.

we like to see is low margins for miners and manufacturers. When there are high margins, at least one player (the benefactor of the high margins) is able to acquire hashrate more cheaply than everyone else, and therefore is able to more easily attack the network.
--
What is the evidence and argument here? That people with more money are more able to attack? People with large trust funds are equally likely to be more able to attack. High profit margins simply indicate a competent agency, nothing more.

ASIC manufacturers ultimately exist to serve the network, and specifically to protect the network against 51% attacks.
--
ASIC manufacturers exist to serve their customers, full stop. They have no role or responsibility to the network at all. Increasing a circle of responsibility to an entity with no control over how their products are used is silly.

Overall, I am disappointed the team chose to ignore the Community Fork proposal in order to run their own fork. But, this is a Nebulous project and ultimately they can do whatever they want. They cannot assert decentralization though and very little about this current action suggests there is a long term goal of decentralization. Decisions to exclude some faction today will most certainly arise down the road as the team concludes that certain storage customers or developers or vendors are unacceptable for various reasons. This hasn't even discussed the awkward part of the equation where Obelisk is owned by the author and stands to gain now and in the future when more powerful, 2nd gen ASICs can be created and no outside manufacturers wanting to risk losing on the Sia project.

The point of the post is to attempt to continue to get Mr. Vorick to recognize the issues with his sole governance of the Sia project. Even the most ill-willed posts from various authors have a goal of improving the project. It is hoped that at some point, Vorick will recognize his project is stronger with community participation, even to the point of going along with community desires sometimes even if it runs counter to his own desires. There is value in learning to negotiate. You learn what to give away and what is sacrosanct. In the end, the project will grow much stronger and there will be copious numbers of supporters ready to do battle against the hyper-competitive world of cloud storage.
submitted by FaustianAGI to siacoin [link] [comments]

ASICBOOST isn't an efficiency gain

Lets take a few hypothetical scenarios:
All ASIC's move from 28nm tech to 16nm tech.
-More work is being done, therefore more security
ASICBOOST is released for free and all ASIC's adopt it
-Same amount of work is being done, security is the same
ASICBOOST is patented and only specific miners can use it
-Same amount of work is being done, but causes miner centralization.
 
Bitcoin's security is provided by work (proof of work). Actual work has to be done to increase security. "Shortcuts" do not increase security. ASICBOOST doesn't do more work, it lets you pretend that you did more than you actually did. It is not an efficiency gain, it is a shortcut. It is disenguous to compare it to other efficiency gains where more work was done.
The correct terminology to describe ASICBOOST is that it is a cryptographic attack.
 
Definition:
A cryptographic attack is a method for circumventing the security of a cryptographic system by finding a weakness in a code, cipher, cryptographic protocol or key management scheme.
 
The cryptographic attack used by ASICBOOST is colliding message blocks.
This same cryptographic attack, colliding message blocks, was used by Google in February 2017 to decrease the security of SHA-1 from 2128 to 261. This allows anyone with a powerful computer cluster to produce full hash collisions for SHA-1, completely breaking its security. This means that an attacker can produce two files with the same hash if they execute this attack and compute 261 operations.
 
More about the SHA-1 attack here:
http://shattered.io
This page contains two different files with the same SHA-1 hash proving that SHA-1 is not secure and cannot be used to verify the integrity of files.
Whitepaper on the colliding message block attack on SHA-1 that was used by Google:
http://shattered.io/static/shattered.pdf
 
ASICBOOST uses colliding message blocks to reduce the security of SHA-256 from 2256 to approximately 2255.48. In practice, this is negligible. However, if a new attack similar to ASICBOOST was revealed that reduced the security to somewhere in the order of 261, Bitcoin mining would be completely broken. It would be possible to mine a block, no matter the difficulty, with 261 operations, which is very achievable with today's technology.
 
Calling ASICBOOST an efficiency gain is very wrong.
Leaving cryptographic attacks unpatched sets a bad precedent that we don't care about these kinds of attacks. When a more serious cryptographic attack is found people will point to this one and say "why was that one allowed". It needs to be clear that we will patch any vulnerabilities on SHA-256
submitted by cowardlyalien to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

With a budget of 1000 dollars, how can I get into Bitcoin mining?

I'm pretty new to Bitcoin, and need some help getting started. I'd love to buy a miner for under $1000. Is that practical, or should I save up for one of the more expensive ones? What else do I need to buy? What are the best mining pools? Thanks in advance for the help!
Edit: I guess it would be more profitable for me to stick to investing, especially with the halving this June. Thanks to all for the very helpful advice!
submitted by HiggsBoson18x to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

I was the one who recommended Metaverse (ETP) and Asch (XAS) and I have found another gem

I was the one who recommended Metaverse(ETP) and Asch(XAS), I have found another gem
Metaverse/Asch at the time was an insanely undervalued project. I brought it to 4chan and recommended it, not a lot of people listened and then suddenly everyone jumped on the bandwagon.
Congratulations to all who decided to take a leap of faith, we have all made insane gains.
After discovering these insane undervalued coins, I have been doing a lot of research on the possible next NEO/OMG/ETH/ETP/WTC/XAS and to my surprise I have once again discovered a gem. I am sure this coin has been brought up before, but after really looking into it, I am convinced this is the real deal for at least a x5-10.
Now I bring you: Lomocoin (LMC) https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/lomocoin/
The first thing most investors get turned of by when looking at this coin, is their name Lomocoin (LMC). To be fair one has to be insane to have named a project this way, it just screams low quality. However, the developers have finally taken note of this problem, and before the 31th of October, they will launch a new website and rename themselves to Lomostar(LMC). While the name is still not that good, it is much better than the former.
Lomocoin (LMC) is a decentralized location based social media application that aims to bridge the virtual world with the real world with their LMC token. Their idea is that brick and mortar stores can attract and capitalize on the foot traffic of the LMC app users by distributing LMC red envelopes around the store area, to which customers can collect and use as a discount on their products immediately by using LMC as a payment. This is only the initial stage of the product, their end goal is a vision like TRON(TRX), where virtual currency and real life world are all interconnected. Their means to get there is by attracting a large LMC user base first, and then slowly phase out into more advanced stages of their plan.
This could potentially be much more powerful than any type of online advertising for brick and mortar businesses. The money that the business spends on Lomocoin will guarantee that real people have seen and visited their business, while a Google or Facebook ad will only guarantee online clicks.
Lomocoin (LMC) already has a working product in the form of a mobile app, desktop wallet and their own block chain. The 2.0 version of their app just got released not too long ago on google playstore and it is pending approval in the IOS appstore which can be released any moment.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.lomocoin.lomocoin
Furthermore, Lomocoin (LMC) has a team of over 50 people, this is just downright insane for a project this size. The team has has been working together since 2013 and they have experience in technical research, business operations, and blockchain tech. They are one of the first teams in China that did blockchain research and development. The founder of Lomocoin (LMC) is called Xiong Lijian, he has helped developed and manufacture the world’s first 28nm Bitcoin and Litecoin dual algorithm chip SF3301 and the world’s first SF100 double miner. As you can deduct, the technical expertise of this CEO is on a whole other level.
CEO’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/xlijian Right Hand Man: https://twitter.com/liuji_daoma Community manager: https://twitter.com/M1lanooo
What’s potentially most valuable about Lomocoin (LMC) is their long term end game vision. Having followed Lomocoin (LMC) for quite a while, it is safe to say that their team comprises of a group of people who are able to deliver on the things promised. Except for the mobile app, the Lomocoin team is also currently beta testing their own online exchange called Xstar and what’s’ even more important is that they have a research team in place called F5. This will all come live in early November. Xstar will facilitate bitcoin/fiat to LMC conversion and for now, all we know about F5 is that it is already working with over 100 small and medium sized businesses, and they are already heavily collaborating with universities in providing blockchain training sessions as well as deep research into blockchain developments and technology. (This information was only recently shared in their telegram group and still mostly unknown to public)
https://xstar.io https://imgur.com/a/q9z2R
Unlike most of the Chinese coins in the above list, that can somewhat be compared to a western equivalent, Lomocoin (LMC) is a real wildcard in this space. Lomocoin (LMC) is unique in its value proposition, and you can’t just assign a minimum value on it based on its western counterpart.
So how do we best value Lomocoin (LMC) in this scenario? To do this we will have to look at social media apps, and the one that comes closest to Lomocoin (LMC) is called MOMO (陌陌). MOMO is not a coin, but a very popular Chinese social media stock listed on Nasdaq. MOMO is a free location-based services instant messaging application for smartphones and tablets. The app allows users to chat with nearby friends and strangers. MOMO’s market cap as of this moment of writing is valued at 6 billion $. LoMocoin (LMC) has all the elements MOMO is offering and even more by providing a gamification and business element to it with location based red envelope hunting with friends or strangers. I think the name Lomocoin is taking a direct stab at MOMO, hence the similarity. Lomocoin is currently as of this moment of writing valued at only 11 million$ , once it starts to gain traction and become more well known you can guarantee that you will never see this level again as it is a far cry from what it should be worth at least with their own product, blockchain as well as wallet.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MOMO/
If it reaches even 1% of what MOMO is doing currently Lomocoin (LMC) should be valued at 60 million $. Lomocoin (LMC) can best be compared with coins like Tron (TRX) and Monacoin(MONA), who are both currently sitting at around 200 million $ valuations with nothing except a whitepaper and hype. The same can easily happen with LMC once they start pushing their marketing at the end of October and early November.
This is a hidden gem and severely undervalued. However before investing money please take your time to do your own research as well, as I cannot guarantee that this will definitely moon. I'm just of very strong believe that this is a VERY undervalued coin for what it has to offer at this moment.
Lomocoin (LMC) is currently available for trade on bittrex and coinexchange and will be expanding into more exchanges in the near future.
If you think that this information is valuable it would be awesome if you can consider donating a small amount to help me out in my daily life. If you would like to subscribe to my small and unknown newsletter shoot me an e-mail [email protected]
I hope that you all have a lot of gains in the future, below are my addresses if you want to donate! Thanks a lot in advance, any amount will be immensely helpful to me.
BTC- 14ehwGpRWWa5xBN3w6Mrgd2FptGHhgtdze Neo- AQb3DVtCRgRXq4H4e72SgcPNfEqZuDwWy9 Eth- 0x91d676f83583d6a19c495c539d59468c7cc22a6f ETP- MD2K3Ud3jxTRwHaUMf8YAnqaqvdzKTNMLX LINK- 0x91d676f83583d6a19c495c539d59468c7cc22a6f
submitted by NiceGuyAnon331 to lomocoin [link] [comments]

[RMC] - Russian Mining Coin ICO, not talked about much, here's my research

Aside from a Bloomberg article, not much has been reported on the ICO that wants to raise 100m USD.
The TLDR:
Interesting people involved:
Dmitry Marinichev - Internet ombudsman advisor to Putin. He's the main driving force behind the ICO, he's been involved with mining operations prior to the ICO, interviewed by Russian news agencies for piece on Bitcoin. Sort of a crypto evangelist in Russia.
Boris Zyrianov - Responsible for the research and development of the multiclet processor, head of OSJC Multiclet company. Along with Nikolai Streltsov (also involved in the project) were awarded a Gold Medal from the Academy of Engineering Science for their work on Multiclet processors in 2012.
Possible involvement:
Boris Titov - Russian billionaire and advisor to Putin on entrepreneurial matters. Russia crypto evangelist and reported to be part of new Russian ICO incubator along with...
Sasha Ivanov - Created waves cryptocurrency.
These 2, it's not entirely clear if the RMC ICO will indeed be part of their incubator.
Other parties and relationships:
Bitfury - Supplies chips for Sunrise S11i miners. Founder is a Russian living in Latvia.
Mycelium - The only platform to offer the ICO, partnered with RMC as a secure way to trade/hold the coin.
The company's and people involved seem to be coming from existing cryptocurrency and engineering projects. The mining infrastructure already exists and this ICO is basically an expansion + R&D for Multiclet.
Reasonable expectations:
Would be very nice:
External factors
Basically you're investing in an existing mining/board/chip manufacturing and R&D company that is expanding (90% of ico money) and developing a next generation mining chip (10% of ico money).
White paper: https://rmc.one/static/pdf/whitepaper_EN.pdf
submitted by tsrp to icocrypto [link] [comments]

Updated FAQs for newcomers

TL:DR: Don't bother mining if you want to get rich yo. You're way too late to the party.
Welcome to the exciting and often stressful world of bitcoin! You are wondering what looks like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich quick. Of course you guys probably heard about this "mining" process but what is this?
Simply put, a bitcoin mining machine that performs complicated calculations and when deemed correct by the network, receives a block which contains 25 bitcoins (XBT). This is how bitcoins are generated. So your brain instantly thinks, "Holy shit, how can I get on this gold rush?"
Before you proceed further, I would like to explain the concept of mining further. Bitcoin is limited 21m in circulation. It is coded to release a certain number of blocks at a certain time frame, ie: this year the network will release close to 500,000 bitcoins. What this means is that the more people (or specifically the amount of mining power) mine, the less each person gets. The network tries to keep to this time frame through the process of difficulty adjustments which makes the calculations harder and this happens every 2 weeks. So every 2 weeks, you get less bitcoins with the same hash rate (mining power) based on what the difficulty changes are. Recently, the changes have been pretty staggering, jumping 226% in 2 months. You can see the difficulty changes here.
Now, why are these changes so large?
A bit of a simple history. Bitcoin's algorithm runs on SHA-256. This algorithm can be solved using many hardware, from CPU to GPU and dedicated hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). When bitcoin first started, mining on CPU was a trivial process, you can pretty much earn 50 XBT (the block size then) every few hours between Q1 and Q2 of 2010.
In late 2010, due to the difficulty increase that is reducing the effectiveness of CPU mining, people started to harness GPU mining. Only AMD GPU's architecture design are better optimized for bitcoin mining so this is what the community used. Immediate improvements of more than 10x was not uncommon.
In time of course, GPUs reached their limit and people started to build dedicated. In the same vein as the CPU to GPU transition, similar performance increase was common. These ASICs can only perform SHA-256 calculation so they can be highly optimized. Their performance mainly depends on the die size of the chips exactly like CPU chips.
In general, think of bitcoin mining's technological advancement no different to mining gold. Gold panning (CPUs) vs pickaxes (GPUs) vs machinery (ASICs) and we are still in the ASIC mining race.
ASIC mining started with ASICMiner and Avalon being first to the market, both producing 130nm and 110nm chips. The technology are antiquated in comparison to CPUs and GPUs which are now 22nm with 14nm slated for Q1 next year by Intel but they are cheap to manufacture and with performance gains similar to the CPU to GPU transition, they were highly successful and popular for early adopters. At that point in time since there were less competing manufacturers and the low batch runs of their products, miners became really rich due to the slow increase in difficulty.
The good days came to an end mid August with an unprecedented 35% increase in difficulty. This is due to existing manufacturers selling more hardware and many other players coming onto the market with better hardware (smaller die). Since die shrinking knowledge and manufacturing process are well known along with a large technological gap (110nm vs 22nm), you get an arms race. Current ASIC makers are closing in on our technological limit and until everyone catches up, the difficulty jumps will be high because it is just too easy to get a performance increase. Most newer products run at 28nm and most chips are not well optimized, so it will be around another 6 to 9 months before we see hit a hard plateau with 22nm or 14nm chips. The estimated time frame is because manufacturing chips at 22nm or 14nm is a more difficult and expensive task. In the meantime most manufacturers will probably settle at 28nm and we will reach a soft plateau in about 3 months.
Now, you might ask these questions and should have them answered and if you have not thought about them at all, then you probably should not touch bitcoin until you understand cause you are highly unprepared and probably lose lots of money.
No. If you have to ask, please do not touch bitcoin yet. You will spend more on electricity cost than mining any substantial bitcoin. Seriously. At all. A 7990 would produce a pitiful 0.02879 XBT (USD $14 @ $500/XBT exchange rate) for the next 30 days starting 23 Nov 2013 at 35% difficulty increase.
And if you think you can mine on your laptop either on a CPU or GPU, you are probably going to melt it before you even get 0.01 XBT.
Probably not because you probably forgot that GPUs and CPUs produce a ton of heat and noise. You can try but I see no point earning < $20 bucks per month.
No, because your machine will probably not mine as much as buying bitcoins. This situation is called the opportunity cost. While you can still make money if XBT rise in value, it is a fallacy.
IE: if you start mining on 1 Dec 2013, a KnC Jupiter running at 450Gh/sec (KnC lies as not all chips run at 550Gh/sec) will yield you a total revenue of 9.5189 XBT with a profit of 0.7859 XBT in profit by 30th Jan 2014 at a constant difficulty increase of 35%. The opportunity cost is: 8.5910 XBT @ USD $580/XBT with USD $5,000 which is the cost of a KnC Jupiter. This is the best you can earn and it's a bloody optimistic assumption because:
The only circumstances where you will earn money is when XBT exchange rates is so high that it makes the opportunity cost pales in comparison. Unfortunately this is not the case. If XBT stabilized at 900/XBT today (20 Nov 2013) then we might have a good case.
The risk is just generally not worth it. Unless you have at least a hundred thousand and can make a contract with a manufacturer for a lower cost, do not bother. Just wait until the arms race is over then you can start mining.
Okay, go buy an AsicMiner USB Block Erupter. They are cheap and pretty fun to have.
Sure, just read the answer below on who NOT to go for. You are doing bitcoin a service by securing the network and you have our (the users') gratitude.
You can check out the manufacturers and their products below along with a calculator here.
If you still insist on buying, do not to go for BFL. Their track record is horrid and borderline scammish. KnC fucked up a lot with defective boards and chips. Personally, I think CoinTerra is the best choice.
Alternatively, you can go on the secondary market to buy a delivered product. You can get a better deal there if you know how to do your "return on investment (ROI)" calculation. Personally, I will go for a 45%-50% difficulty increase for the next 3 months for my calculations and a 2% pool fee.
However, most products on ebay are sold at a cost much higher than it should. bitcointalk.org is a cheaper place because everyone knows what are the true value is so you will find less options. If you are unclear or need assistance, please post a question.
I actually do not use any of the pools recommended to the left because I think they lack features.
My favourite is Bitminter (Variable fees based on features used; max 2%). It has all advanced features for a pool, very responsive and helpful owner on IRC. Variable fees is good for those who do not need a large feature set, even with all features turned on, it is still cheap.
Eligius (0% fees) has high value for money but lacks features. It has anonymous mining which might be attractive to certain subset of people but not for others. Many other community member and I disagree highly with the opinions of the owner on the direction of bitcoin. I do use his pool for now but I do so only because I share my miners with a few partners and anonymous mining allows us to monitor the machines without using an account. Bitminter uses only OpenID which is problematic for me.
BTC Guild (3% fees) is another big pool and is fully featured and does charge a premium for their fees. That said, they are the most stable of the lot. I do use them but do so only because my hoster uses them for monitoring. I try not to use them because a pool with a very large hash rate (they are the largest) presents a large vulnerability to bitcoin's network if compromised.
All of them pay out transaction fees.
submitted by Coz131 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

KKK-003 300

KKK-003 300 submitted by ebocoolinc to u/ebocoolinc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin: il mining ha tenuto alla grande, anche con il dimezzamento del premio Antminer S5 1150 г 28NM BM1384 Bitcoin SHA256 ASIC miner Bitcoin биткоин Майнинг mining aliexpress How to Setup Antminer  Earn $100 per day  ☔ Cuteer Dibba ☔ LIGHTNINGASIC 28nm LA30MB Blade Scrypt Miner. AntMiner S3 441Gh/S @ 0.77W/Gh 28nm SHA-256 ASIC Miner

591 28nm bitcoin miner products are offered for sale by suppliers on Alibaba.com, of which blockchain miners accounts for 11%. A wide variety of 28nm bitcoin miner options are available to you, such as metal. You can also choose from usb 2.0, usb 3.0, and usb 28nm bitcoin miner, as well as from dvi, vga, and s-video 28nm bitcoin miner, and whether 28nm bitcoin miner is 256 bit, 128 bit, or 512 ... DIHAO asic bitcoin miner 2.3TH A1 chip 1600W 2.3TH/s 2014 digital currency 2T Dragon ASIC BITCOIN Miner 28nm A1 . US $1900-$2100 / Set 1 Set (Min. Order) 7 YRS . Shenzhen Dihao Technology Co., Ltd. (114) 87.4% " Delivered well " (15 ... Some Bitcoin miners might have their hands on the new Fast-Hash One as soon as November, since Virtual Mining Corporation (VMC) has recently closed a deal with eASIC, a firm specialized in the production of fabless semiconductor. VMC is going to use its partner’s 28 nm ASIC chip to create innovative mining boxes, that can be expanded up to 24.5 TH/sec. Other required equipment necessary for Bitcoin mining ·Miner’s power supply. Since Bitcoin mining needs its own power supplies to operate, you can’t just plug into an extension-cord as it uses lots of electricity to run. You’ll need to get a power-supply that may cost you on about $100-150 depending on your location. ·Coiling fans . They are very important in Bitcoin mining. On ... Bitcoin-Mining in Eigenbau-Rechenzentren mit Billigstrom Eine kleine Firma füllt nahe dem Columbia River im Nordwesten der USA leere Fabrikhallen mit Spezial-Hardware zum Schürfen des ...

[index] [26209] [18704] [26602] [19854] [2061] [26052] [47463] [4158] [29657] [29635]

Bitcoin: il mining ha tenuto alla grande, anche con il dimezzamento del premio

LIGHTNINGASIC 28nm LA30MB Blade Scrypt Miner, 250W only. Join link : http://bitcofarm.com/home?r=jinomilton bitcoin mining bitcoin miner bitcoin mining rig bitcoin to usd bitcoin atm bitcoin account bitcoin blockch... How to BitCoin mine using fast ASIC mining hardware - Duration: 27:15. Barnacules Nerdgasm 1,686,092 views. 27:15. Navy SEAL Jocko Willink Breaks Down Combat Scenes From Movies ... Antminer S5 1150 г 28NM BM1384 Bitcoin SHA256 ASIC miner Bitcoin биткоин Майнинг mining aliexpress Асик Майнер First 4 pcs LA90M 28NM scrypt miner worked whole night in the testing farm.

#