Be careful guys
I receive a mail with a limited offer of new scam model E9+ (2970 mh +5%) Presale with 200 usd coupon, algo Ethash
with an address to deposit, only for registered users.
Be careful dont fall into this Scam mail with a pdf with false info.
It seems legit because they have all my info, full name, address, etc,. but is fake.
Spread the word with your friends.
Topic: Bitmain E3 Ethash Miner ASIC (Shipping:16-31 July. $800 USD) - page 12. (Read 16420 times)
Bitmain has painted themselves into a corner. Not that it matters. They've flooded the market in a price downturn and now they can't achieve enough efficiency enhancement to up price the new tech coming. Even if they could hold watts the same and triple hashing power, they can't realistically justify a $1,500.00 S9. Things are extremely grim. I take solace in knowing that a bunch of greedy corporate maggots that went "all in" on mining are about to get their throats ripped out. No matter what their KWH rate is. I will piss on their graves.
These should be at most 1200$, with the threat of eth hybrid POS on the horizon and gpu equilhash hashing power shifting to other algos soon.
Newer gpus are coming with 40% more hashes and bitmain knows that and is the reason why bitmain is also selling this to clear inventory for stronger eth asics in their warehouses and better sell now than lose it all when newer gpus are here, this asic is noweher competitive at this price range, now if it was around $400 then it would be.
It was competitive at the original $800 asking, actually. If you price out the same hashrate and power consumption (or slightly better, really), it'll cost you more than $800. At it's current price though? 100% agree, build a GPU rig which will likely cost less (unless you buy overpriced new parts across the board), will be more energy efficient once tweaked, and will likely supply a slightly higher hashrate, BUT you can mine a ton of other things as well. It's a no brainer, really.
But at $800? If I hadn't already had rigs up and running when they released it, I would have at the VERY least considered it...
Newer gpus are coming with 40% more hashes and bitmain knows that and is the reason why bitmain is also selling this to clear inventory for stronger eth asics in their warehouses and better sell now than lose it all when newer gpus are here, this asic is noweher competitive at this price range, now if it was around $400 then it would be.
Has anyone actually confirmed that these are asics and not just a custom PCB with RX570 dies on them?
If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.
The E3 isn't really any more efficient than the GPU miners so I don't see how these units will make any impact at all. Like someone else pointed out there weren't enough of these sold to make a difference. Run the hash/energy consumption numbers and you will verify for yourself that this is no competitive advantage with the E3.
For those who bought the first batch E3 worth $800, the price point is a clear competitive advantage.
Also, if pay closer attention to the E3 notes, it says that the advertised hashrate and power consumption is only conservative and would probably change once it is delivered. We could be looking at 180-200 MH with less than 800 watts power consumption. Thats better efficiency than any GPU out there as of today.
If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.
The E3 isn't really any more efficient than the GPU miners so I don't see how these units will make any impact at all. Like someone else pointed out there weren't enough of these sold to make a difference. Run the hash/energy consumption numbers and you will verify for yourself that this is no competitive advantage with the E3.
If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.
Why would they sell to crash gpu mining?
This is one thing bitmain wont make a huge dint in, unless they sold a massive amount at $800, which i doubt, these arent selling out , with good reason. Its more likely the equilhash miners will crash gpu mining.
If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.
Why would they sell to crash gpu mining?
If they sell enough to crash eth mining. It will crash gpu mining.
Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.
This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.
Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.
I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.
Chicken or the egg?
For Ethereum the software came first and ASIC is only now catching up. So when software changes the mining requirement the ASIC will need to catch up. But if that cycle keeps on repeating, does it even matter which is the cause and which is the effect of the latest revision? Each change becomes the effect of the previous cycle and the cause for the next cycle.
You think he can change ETH with the flick of his wrist or a push of a button?!?!?! LMGDAO!! He can't do SHIT. That's why he's been jerking off to POS articles for the last 1.5 years but can't do anything about changing it. 1.5 years to have a BETA version of Casper. yeah....just a snap of the fingers. Just read this article and learn something. Stop posting this schoolyard bullshit. https://blog.sia.tech/the-state-of-cryptocurrency-mining-538004a37f9b Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.
This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.
Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.
I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.
Chicken or the egg?
For Ethereum the software came first and ASIC is only now catching up. So when software changes the mining requirement the ASIC will need to catch up. But if that cycle keeps on repeating, does it even matter which is the cause and which is the effect of the latest revision? Each change becomes the effect of the previous cycle and the cause for the next cycle.
Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.
This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.
Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.
I think you can agree that Buterin or "little dracula" or whatever his name is... is quite the exception and not the rule.
Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.
This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.
Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.
lol
thats literally just a GPU rig. one of my rigs is the same MH and power draw.
and i can actually use it for something else or sell the components.
and i can actually use it for something else or sell the components.
Who would you rather be? The Software developer that has to rewrite the software of your protocol to fork away from the ASIC, or the Hardware manufacturer who changes the Algo to hash on the new forked protocol? I'll take the latter....every time.
This is a separate topic on it's own but i would pick the former, software developer, any time. It's simply much more profitable to do so.
Imagine how much power and money Vitalik has, with a click of his fingers he could influence the entire ETH dev team to fork and destroy the E3. He could also short and destroy mining or the entire ETH network by uploading some bad code. He knows exactly when updates are going to happen beforehand and could even use this opportunity to buy ETH before it pumps. It is so profitable to be Vitalik Buterin.
...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...
Due to the nature of the beast, hardware can NOT be more flexible than software. Granted some of the system/network issues associated with hard-forking a coin needs to be considered carefully within the software. But the system considerations are not the indications of inflexibility of software. Sure, the design cycle of ASIC is becoming much shorter but the inherent inflexibility of hardware hasn't disappeared. If the hardware is that much more flexible than software, why not just implement the entire aspects of coin in hardware?
...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...
Hardware is infinitely more flexible than Software in these coins. The Hardware manufacturers can adjust their specs to circumvent these forks fairly quickly.
...
Due to the nature of the beast, hardware can NOT be more flexible than software. Granted some of the system/network issues associated with hard-forking a coin needs to be considered carefully within the software. But the system considerations are not the indications of inflexibility of software. Sure, the design cycle of ASIC is becoming much shorter but the inherent inflexibility of hardware hasn't disappeared. If the hardware is that much more flexible than software, why not just implement the entire aspects of coin in hardware?
If it is just a price adjustment then why call it batch 2, or batch 3? If they are in fact new batches that is a load of garbage that they are shipping all the same date. Othewise it would seem to be pretty poor choice to call the new prices a "batch".
Jump to: