i've turned off my miners.
i'm not going to spend $6.72aud(24 hours of power) for maybe only $0.50aud return.
It would definitely be more cost effective for you to just spend that money at an exchange to buy XMG.i'm not going to spend $6.72aud(24 hours of power) for maybe only $0.50aud return.
Isn't it summer in Australia? Summer is the worst time to mine in your house. Here in Michigan it is currently -12 Celsius. For my apartment to be comfortable at night I need to run my electric infrared fireplace, at least for part of the time. It has a 700W low setting and a 1300W high setting. I also have a really old ASIC mining rig of S1 antminers. From a mining profitability prospective it is a HUGE loss to run these. They are underclocked and have quiet fans, so they use 550W. If my apartment is really cold, I can run the fireplace at low power and run the mining rig, and the room heats up pretty quick. I would rather run the rig and the fireplace at low power because 1250W is less than 1300W. Once the room starts to be a comfortable temperature, I turn the fireplace off first because 550W is less than 700W. Then a little later I turn the rig off, because the only reason I turned it on in the first place was to heat the room. Even though the mining rewards were small, did I spend any money on mining, or did I spend money on heating that I was already going to spend? The marginal cost for running the mining rig in this case is very low.
The philosophy of Magi was to create a coin that minimizes electricity consumption, compared to Bitcoin where mining consumes more electricity then a majority of countries in the world. Being incentivized to off turn an unnecessary computer is a feature of this coin, not a bug. If you have a computer that already has to be on for some reason, it is going to consume power. It isn't going to use that much extra power to mine in the background with 10% of CPU resources. The marginal cost of mining would be the difference from the power consumption at 10% CPU minus the cost of running the computer at 0%. This is much less then the cost of running the CPU at 100% for mining.
I think the problem with mining right now are the pools, because they have no incentive to limit hashrate. They make a % based on how many blocks are mined, so the more blocks their pool finds the more they make. It isn't rational to expect them to limit hashrate to potentially get higher block rewards, because they don't control other pools. High hashrate miners will just go to a competitor and the pool operator will get less money.
In my opinion the way to fix this would be to make changes that encourage solo mining. This could be done by making it so solo miners could find blocks with a lower hashrate at a higher proportional probability. Maybe this could be done with a new version of PoW difficulty, where the difficulty required to find a block is modified by an individual wallets coin weight. It could also be modified by finding PoS blocks where if a wallet has coins maturing, it becomes easier to find a PoW block. At a minimum this would encourage pool operators not to sell off the coins that they collect as fees, because if they sell them they will lose miners to another pool that doesn't sell them off and stakes them. It might also be possible to make the wallet require a higher difficulty hash if hashpersec on the wallet is higher then a certain threshold. This would encourage a pool to run multiple instances of the wallet, but this countermeasure would be discouraged by the need for all of those instances to have coins staking to be competitive. Big pools are a problem and leads to centralization. It doesn't make any sense for more than 90% of all hashrate to be on two pools. If they go down, the blockchain will slow to a crawl again.
