just wait retards, soon you x3 will be 1$/day, more and more asics are shipped, more and more coins fork away, more and more asics increase difficulty of the left coins & the left coins dont grow in price with the difficulty
Topic: Bitmain Antminer X3 -- 220KH+ Cryponight - 550W - page 9. (Read 18895 times)
GPU has hit a new all time low of 50 cents after electric. Time to trade in your gpu for a metal detector and go look for some change. More profitable than gpu mining.
Yup. Looks like GPU is an official paperweight. Would be a terrible boat anchor. Rumple lol
Looks like mining is drying up.
GPU has hit a new all time low of 50 cents after electric. Time to trade in your gpu for a metal detector and go look for some change. More profitable than gpu mining.
It's still $1+ for a paltry RX570 that sells for $200-$220 and that too mining the top coins.
You can build a rig 6 or RX570 or 3x Vega + components for $1900 and still make $6+ now
Are you suggesting the X3 does more than $6 after electricity now?
GPU has hit a new all time low of 50 cents after electric. Time to trade in your gpu for a metal detector and go look for some change. More profitable than gpu mining.
hey guys one quick question
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
lol this thread used to be heavily followed and posted too, same as the D3 , A3 and B3how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
I think the silence you hear is the sound of doorstop status being reached
congrats geniuses, no one can outsmart bitmain , if they are selling you gear ot means its going
to be worthless in 3 months or less but like the say : the fewl and his money are soon parted 😂
hey guys one quick question
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
Everyone who bought the ASIC know what the real situation and returns are like. People learn from experience.
Sure there are some members who just piggyback on pro ASIC statement, resort to abuses and think GPU rigs do $2 but we don't need to incite people now do we?
Just hit ignore on both of them. Neither are paying attention to anyone and they're just repeating the same crap over and over again. Not contributing, they're just trolling.
hey guys one quick question
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
My 6.50 is doing fine, how bout the $3. gpu, with 51% attack?how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
? OTFLMAO hey guys one quick question
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
Everyone who bought the ASIC know what the real situation and returns are like. People learn from experience.
Sure there are some members who just piggyback on pro ASIC statement, resort to abuses and think GPU rigs do $2 but we don't need to incite people now do we?
hey guys one quick question
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
how is your $2 per day doorstopper doing?
Or sell a 20kH/s CN miner for a few weeks then roll out a 240kH/s version (like Baikal did).
To be fair, it's simply a larger chassis. The hashboards in the N+ are the same, they are likely trying to liquidate useless inventory faster. Any return on those boards is better than just scrapping them, so they will do whatever is necessary to sell.
It's not as if Baikal cares anyway, the fact that they had minimum of 5 months of secret mining is indisputable. The earliest mining date I was able to independently confirm was on September 3rd last year, and they operated almost continuously until March 11th. Thanks to cooperation from the administrators at one XMR pool, I confirmed Baikal fetched 3605 XMR between December 11th and March 11th. In addition to mining at this XMR pool, we know they used Nicehash sometimes, as well as some ETN pool that does not exist anymore. Since we had to rely on the characteristics of flash memory to glean this knowledge, there's a chance we're only just scraping the surface of their secret rewards.
PinIdea did the same thing too. After analyzing the clues they left behind the earliest confirmed date for the RR-200 submitting valid CN work was September 15th. They used their own pool though, so no clues to the scale of their operation remain. But based on how early they had a working device, it's safe to say they they too had a small farm for sure.
OTFLMAO, frustration getting the best of you Huh? 51% attack too bad you don't get it. OTFL
Any more of the Z9 minis ship yet or is it still just that first tiny portion of batch 1 out there?
...
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
That was true for CryptoNight, but not for Ethash (E3 is 180MH/s at 800W) or Equihash (Z9 is 10kSols/s at 300W). Respectively, that makes the E3 about as powerful as a typical 6x RX 570 GPU rig but drawing much less power and costing less as well, while the Z9 is about 2x more powerful than a 6x GTX 1080ti rig while also drawing much less power and costing less. In other words, not even close to 100x more powerful.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
I literally just pointed out 2 examples where the 2nd gen ASIC was 5x to 10x faster than the previous gen and yet you still tried to claim only a 2x improvement is possible?
Right, okay. I think I'm done here.
Again another poor argument that failed to get the point and failed to put it all together.
You are correct with Ethash. And its b/c its relying on the limitations of memory hardware tech Moor's law, But its only a matter of time before a 51 percent attack will happen.
yes Z9 wasn't 100x more powerful like that X3, it was just only 10x more powerful. Wait only 10X?!?! You kidding me. 10X is enough to do a 51 percent attack especially if the hardware only cost $2000 compared to a gpu rig will need 10k cash to have 10k sols and generate over 2510 watt usage vs the z9mini 300watts!, and thats exactly what happen with a big enough farm that got early access to bitmain Z9 and ate those gpus hashrate up. Again proving my point that its better to have specialized hardware over consumer grade cards meant for games to secure billions of dollars.
You are wrong about your asic example being 5x-10x faster than previous generations. S7 was rated at 4.86 TH and S9 rated at 12.5 TH, That's pretty much 3x faster, they both use around same watts but at the time the S7 cost $2000 initially. S7 to S9 is an impressive leap but no where near able to do a 51 percent attack on a whole network especially at the starting price point. Thats why you don't hear about a 51 percent attack on bitcoin.
Thanks you for further clarifying my point. The closer the hardware is at peak efficiency with no competitive product the safer your blockchain will be.
Thinking video game cards meant for games, is the way to go in securing a network worth billiions of dollars is just foolish and backward thinking. A 51 percent attack will happen and millions will be lost and ultimately will not last 10 years with this type of thinking.
...
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
That was true for CryptoNight, but not for Ethash (E3 is 180MH/s at 800W) or Equihash (Z9 is 10kSols/s at 300W). Respectively, that makes the E3 about as powerful as a typical 6x RX 570 GPU rig but drawing much less power and costing less as well, while the Z9 is about 2x more powerful than a 6x GTX 1080ti rig while also drawing much less power and costing less. In other words, not even close to 100x more powerful.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
I literally just pointed out 2 examples where the 2nd gen ASIC was 5x to 10x faster than the previous gen and yet you still tried to claim only a 2x improvement is possible?
Right, okay. I think I'm done here.
Again another poor argument that failed to get the point and failed to put it all together.
You are correct with Ethash. And its b/c its relying on the limitations of memory hardware tech Moor's law, But its only a matter of time before a 51 percent attack will happen.
yes Z9 wasn't 100x more powerful like that X3, it was just only 10x more powerful. Wait only 10X?!?! You kidding me. 10X is enough to do a 51 percent attack especially if the hardware only cost $2000 compared to a gpu rig will need 10k cash to have 10k sols and generate over 2510 watt usage vs the z9mini 300watts!, and thats exactly what happen with a big enough farm that got early access to bitmain Z9 and ate those gpus hashrate up. Again proving my point that its better to have specialized hardware over consumer grade cards meant for games to secure billions of dollars.
You are wrong about your asic example being 5x-10x faster than previous generations. S7 was rated at 4.86 TH and S9 rated at 12.5 TH, That's pretty much 3x faster, they both use around same watts but at the time the S7 cost $2000 initially. S7 to S9 is an impressive leap but no where near able to do a 51 percent attack on a whole network especially at the starting price point. Thats why you don't hear about a 51 percent attack on bitcoin.
Thanks you for further clarifying my point. The closer the hardware is at peak efficiency with no competitive product the safer your blockchain will be.
Thinking video game cards meant for games, is the way to go in securing a network worth billiions of dollars is just foolish and backward thinking. A 51 percent attack will happen and millions will be lost and ultimately will not last 10 years with this type of thinking.
Doesn't matter who produces whatever efficiency ASIC/GPU. A giant corp/individual can still rent out hashpower and attack a network. The blockchain tech matters, Algo and code matters, decentralization matters.
Going by the logic if only ASICs were prevalent and help secured network here's an example. lets assume we have 1st Gen ASICS $500 now and many can buy this and help with decentralization but later Gen 2 ASICS are $10k 10x faster and 20x efficient and only ones available in market; this is the trend going on when ASIC market is mfg by one single entity. Who can afford those ASICs? Are you suggesting people will be willing to shell out $10k and buy 1 ASIC just for the cause?
The same giant corp who mines with GPU farm can get X number of ASICs and initiate a network attack. They are limited only by power requirements, infrastructure, laws (if applicable), maintenance costs.
...
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
That was true for CryptoNight, but not for Ethash (E3 is 180MH/s at 800W) or Equihash (Z9 is 10kSols/s at 300W). Respectively, that makes the E3 about as powerful as a typical 6x RX 570 GPU rig but drawing much less power and costing less as well, while the Z9 is about 2x more powerful than a 6x GTX 1080ti rig while also drawing much less power and costing less. In other words, not even close to 100x more powerful.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
I literally just pointed out 2 examples where the 2nd gen ASIC was 5x to 10x faster than the previous gen and yet you still tried to claim only a 2x improvement is possible?
Right, okay. I think I'm done here.
Again another poor argument that failed to get the point and failed to put it all together.
You are correct with Ethash. And its b/c its relying on the limitations of memory hardware tech Moor's law, But its only a matter of time before a 51 percent attack will happen.
yes Z9 wasn't 100x more powerful like that X3, it was just only 10x more powerful. Wait only 10X?!?! You kidding me. 10X is enough to do a 51 percent attack especially if the hardware only cost $2000 compared to a gpu rig will need 10k cash to have 10k sols and generate over 2510 watt usage vs the z9mini 300watts!, and thats exactly what happen with a big enough farm that got early access to bitmain Z9 and ate those gpus hashrate up. Again proving my point that its better to have specialized hardware over consumer grade cards meant for games to secure billions of dollars.
You are wrong about your asic example being 5x-10x faster than previous generations. S7 was rated at 4.86 TH and S9 rated at 12.5 TH, That's pretty much 3x faster, they both use around same watts but at the time the S7 cost $2000 initially. S7 to S9 is an impressive leap but no where near able to do a 51 percent attack on a whole network especially at the starting price point. Thats why you don't hear about a 51 percent attack on bitcoin.
Thanks you for further clarifying my point. The closer the hardware is at peak efficiency with no competitive product the safer your blockchain will be.
Thinking video game cards meant for games, is the way to go in securing a network worth billiions of dollars is just foolish and backward thinking. A 51 percent attack will happen and millions will be lost and ultimately will not last 10 years with this type of thinking.
...
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
That was true for CryptoNight, but not for Ethash (E3 is 180MH/s at 800W) or Equihash (Z9 is 10kSols/s at 300W). Respectively, that makes the E3 about as powerful as a typical 6x RX 570 GPU rig but drawing much less power and costing less as well, while the Z9 is about 2x more powerful than a 6x GTX 1080ti rig while also drawing much less power and costing less. In other words, not even close to 100x more powerful.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
I literally just pointed out 2 examples where the 2nd gen ASIC was 5x to 10x faster than the previous gen and yet you still tried to claim only a 2x improvement is possible?
Right, okay. I think I'm done here.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
I bolded the key phrase that invalidates your entire argument. The manufacturer of the "secret ASIC miner" is also the one most likely to be running them. In fact, selling a fraction of the ASICs you make to the public and keeping the majority for yourself is a great way to maintain control over a coin's network, bring in lots of money from mining, and pay for their development.
This can also be done by selling, say, a 10kSols/s ASIC to the public when you already have a 50kSols/s version working. You know, like seems to be the case with Bitmain's Equihash ASICs? Or sell a 20kH/s CN miner for a few weeks then roll out a 240kH/s version (like Baikal did).
Even if you don't care about principles and ethics, buying an ASIC when the manufacturers do what they have done over and over again is just shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that BTC and, eventually, LTC were taken over by ASICs without much negative consequence probably has more to do with them being the first ones; in other words, the ASIC manufacturers learned some new tricks and tactics since then.
It is a good argument. It is better not to buy ASIC.
His argument is poor.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
With asics your protected by Moore's law.
With gpu , these devices are not made for solving blocks makes them very insecure to protect your money
Yes, his argument is indeed weak. I do however agree with his comment about bitmain's business practice.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
I bolded the key phrase that invalidates your entire argument. The manufacturer of the "secret ASIC miner" is also the one most likely to be running them. In fact, selling a fraction of the ASICs you make to the public and keeping the majority for yourself is a great way to maintain control over a coin's network, bring in lots of money from mining, and pay for their development.
This can also be done by selling, say, a 10kSols/s ASIC to the public when you already have a 50kSols/s version working. You know, like seems to be the case with Bitmain's Equihash ASICs? Or sell a 20kH/s CN miner for a few weeks then roll out a 240kH/s version (like Baikal did).
Even if you don't care about principles and ethics, buying an ASIC when the manufacturers do what they have done over and over again is just shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that BTC and, eventually, LTC were taken over by ASICs without much negative consequence probably has more to do with them being the first ones; in other words, the ASIC manufacturers learned some new tricks and tactics since then.
It is a good argument. It is better not to buy ASIC.
His argument is poor.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
With asics your protected by Moore's law.
With gpu , these devices are not made for solving blocks makes them very insecure to protect your money
You can also do a 51% attack with CPU. The only thing you need is a enough capital to rent/buy hash power to attack the network regardless of ASIC, GPU, CPU.
https://medium.com/@lincproject/is-verge-fixed-or-how-to-hack-verge-again-and-get-more-than-2m-usd-only-with-cpu-3af241e648a9
Increasing the number of confirmations required will help alleviate the 51% attack, perhaps?
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
I bolded the key phrase that invalidates your entire argument. The manufacturer of the "secret ASIC miner" is also the one most likely to be running them. In fact, selling a fraction of the ASICs you make to the public and keeping the majority for yourself is a great way to maintain control over a coin's network, bring in lots of money from mining, and pay for their development.
This can also be done by selling, say, a 10kSols/s ASIC to the public when you already have a 50kSols/s version working. You know, like seems to be the case with Bitmain's Equihash ASICs? Or sell a 20kH/s CN miner for a few weeks then roll out a 240kH/s version (like Baikal did).
Even if you don't care about principles and ethics, buying an ASIC when the manufacturers do what they have done over and over again is just shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that BTC and, eventually, LTC were taken over by ASICs without much negative consequence probably has more to do with them being the first ones; in other words, the ASIC manufacturers learned some new tricks and tactics since then.
It is a good argument. It is better not to buy ASIC.
His argument is poor.
The leap from gpu too Asic is 100x plus hash rate increase so easier to do 51 attack.
The leap from Asic to better asic, is 2x at best due to the limitations of chip size nm and power efficiency vs high equipment cost to manufacture a better Asic over previous generations. This is not enough to do a 51 attack on whole network.
With asics your protected by Moore's law.
With gpu , these devices are not made for solving blocks makes them very insecure to protect your money
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
If the coin decides to stick with GPU algo its only a matter of time before another 51 percent attack is performed by a secret asic miner that cracked the asic resistance. Best to get it over with and stay an asic coin for better network security over gpu.
...
I bolded the key phrase that invalidates your entire argument. The manufacturer of the "secret ASIC miner" is also the one most likely to be running them. In fact, selling a fraction of the ASICs you make to the public and keeping the majority for yourself is a great way to maintain control over a coin's network, bring in lots of money from mining, and pay for their development.
This can also be done by selling, say, a 10kSols/s ASIC to the public when you already have a 50kSols/s version working. You know, like seems to be the case with Bitmain's Equihash ASICs? Or sell a 20kH/s CN miner for a few weeks then roll out a 240kH/s version (like Baikal did).
Even if you don't care about principles and ethics, buying an ASIC when the manufacturers do what they have done over and over again is just shooting yourself in the foot. The fact that BTC and, eventually, LTC were taken over by ASICs without much negative consequence probably has more to do with them being the first ones; in other words, the ASIC manufacturers learned some new tricks and tactics since then.
It is a good argument. It is better not to buy ASIC.
Jump to: