Topic: BITMAIN launches 4th generation Bitcoin mining ASIC: BM1385 - page 5. (Read 39340 times)
Is this "BITMAIN launches 4th generation Bitcoin mining ASIC: BM1385" or "Let's have bigger blocks discussion" ?
i dont really understand the difference between the two, ill have to do some more research
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
Yes it is horribly confusing. Because many confuse XT with BIP100 or BIP101, they thing "Oh they all bring block increase so its all the same and finally there's actual code that was released that could do it! Wowe!" and they miss the whole fact XT include non related code as well.
It would be very nice to not see whales and big pools obfuscate their vote for XT by labeling it BIP10X. Hopefully the S7 hash stays out of it too.
This is what happened to me. I got both BIP101 and BIP100 confused and thought that there was finally a consensus. I've only been following the debate off and on.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
Yes it is horribly confusing. Because many confuse XT with BIP100 or BIP101, they thing "Oh they all bring block increase so its all the same and finally there's actual code that was released that could do it! Wowe!" and they miss the whole fact XT include non related code as well.
Only the BIP101 part of XT would cause a hardfork. So from the pool's perspective it makes sense to vote for/against that specific BIP, whether it's implemented in XT or in Core.
I understand why they're classed together then, but i wouldn't personally. I'd say XT is a step worser.
But anyways, i think avoiding the hard fork way is the way to go. With a strict implemention of BIP100, i think we would be better off.
I hope Bitmain will feel that way too, since with their size, they can basically prevent it from happening since i think BIP100 would need over 75% of block for 10 days strait?
BIP100 would need a hard fork too. It has a different way of adjusting the block size - 90% majority, continuous voting by pools.
BIP101 is the one that needs 75% and it's looking at the last 1000 blocks (~7 days), starting in January. There is no voting after that, block size set to 8MB then doubles every 2 years.
The whole thing is mostly political. I'm guessing big pools would prefer BIP100 as they could wield influence with voting. For the little guy BIP101 with its predictable schedule works fine.
Anyway, this is getting off topic, sorry.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
Yes it is horribly confusing. Because many confuse XT with BIP100 or BIP101, they thing "Oh they all bring block increase so its all the same and finally there's actual code that was released that could do it! Wowe!" and they miss the whole fact XT include non related code as well.
Only the BIP101 part of XT would cause a hardfork. So from the pool's perspective it makes sense to vote for/against that specific BIP, whether it's implemented in XT or in Core.
I understand why they're classed together then, but i wouldn't personally. I'd say XT is a step worser.
But anyways, i think avoiding the hard fork way is the way to go. With a strict implemention of BIP100, i think we would be better off.
I hope Bitmain will feel that way too, since with their size, they can basically prevent it from happening since i think BIP100 would need over 75% of block for 10 days strait?
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
Yes it is horribly confusing. Because many confuse XT with BIP100 or BIP101, they thing "Oh they all bring block increase so its all the same and finally there's actual code that was released that could do it! Wowe!" and they miss the whole fact XT include non related code as well.
Only the BIP101 part of XT would cause a hardfork. So from the pool's perspective it makes sense to vote for/against that specific BIP, whether it's implemented in XT or in Core.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
Yes it is horribly confusing. Because many confuse XT with BIP100 or BIP101, they thing "Oh they all bring block increase so its all the same and finally there's actual code that was released that could do it! Wowe!" and they miss the whole fact XT include non related code as well.
It would be very nice to not see whales and big pools obfuscate their vote for XT by labeling it BIP10X. Hopefully the S7 hash stays out of it too.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
I don't think it's easy to tell which ports folks are using on Slush. The one hint I have found is under the "Pool Statisitics" tab is a chart with PH rate graphs broken out with BIP101 as one of the labels. I don't see an XT labeled line. My simplistic understanding is that SLUSH is essentially "labeling" blocks according to which pool you use. I think that BIP101 is the moniker that he's using at this time, but the whole XT/BIP101/Blocksize fiasco is terribly confusing for most folks. It's quite possible I have this wrong, as I expect about 90% of the miners in the world do.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
Is it a XT port or a BIP101 port? Because those arent the same thing. At all.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size .
That's what I thought at first too. But if you look at the pool stats this whale is not pointed at the BIP101 port. And it is a whale, since it's got over 12 PH/s.
slush pool hashrate increased by 10ph/s in the last 24 hours... new miners being tested?
That's not bitmain if it was like some one else said they would be on there own pool or off some were we don't know of.
when the S7 hit well know for sure count on that.
whats happening on slash pool is the voting for bigger blocks size . There face book page explains it all . no more off topic sorry this is and isn't .
I haven't read all these 14 pages, any idea when approx an actual miner might be released?
No indication yet.
Third Q of 2015 which usually falls over into the 4th Q . so to say when no one really knows when but bitmain they have some kind of set date, if i had to guess maybe by the end of OCT at the latest if not then, or before, then around Xmas with a discount .
. slush pool hashrate increased by 10ph/s in the last 24 hours... new miners being tested?
I imagine that bitmain would test on their own pool.
Can we expect the S7 miners to still be profitable after the Bitcoin halving or will we still be seeing new and improved chips before that?
If halving happened right now, with this diffuculty, the profibility of S7 would be exactly the same of S5 right now as it seems like it is using half the energy an s5 uses. But as we are talking about future, calculations cant exactly be accurate and it would involve assumptions.
slush pool hashrate increased by 10ph/s in the last 24 hours... new miners being tested?
Can we expect the S7 miners to still be profitable after the Bitcoin halving or will we still be seeing new and improved chips before that?
There is no reasonable answer to this question at this time, nor even after the the S7 produced. There are at least 5 variables that determine it's profitability 10 months from now (roughly the halving date).
1) When it's delivered.
2) It's power consumption
3) It's hashrate.
4) What the BTC price is after halving.
5) The difficulty after halving or shortly thereafter.
6) What your electricity price is. If it's $.10 or higher now, it almost certainly won't be profitable except briefly at introduction.
Can we expect the S7 miners to still be profitable after the Bitcoin halving or will we still be seeing new and improved chips before that?
I haven't read all these 14 pages, any idea when approx an actual miner might be released?
No indication yet.
I haven't read all these 14 pages, any idea when approx an actual miner might be released?
Thanks, that's good enough for me if everything just works. Had just expected to see some address pins grounded.
Had just expected to see some address pins grounded.Jump to: