Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 1313. (Read 3058812 times)
July 27, 2014, 11:26:34 AM
Price drives mining, right now..its not profitable to mine..infact..it hasent been in at least a month. When it is, it just gets dumped, just like all alts. Sad but true, its cheaper to buy this than mine it.. and even then, no one is buying it. I feel a lil stuck.. have a bunch, and just keep seeing its value drop. That tells me, that there are no investors behind the sceens with NDA's. I can only imagine how un profitable it will be to mine this in 2 years, 5 yrs, 8 yrs, 15 yrs.. how long does mining go on for? 28 years? Just dis-heartened, every alt is down, because..well.. face it.. its just gambling. Dreams of being some world wide, mass adopted way of paying for things is lunacy. The price fluctuation are sometimes 50x of what any credit card fee could possibly ever be on some coins. Unless you have a ton of BTC to make markets do what you want.. its pointless.
July 27, 2014, 10:46:58 AM
Pretty active conversation and ongoing implementation of the multi algorithm for DGB, which will drive more of the mining community into the coin. I am sure there are other items going on behind the scene that will help DGB take it's share of the crypto market. All positive if you ask me!
YC
YC
I was 2 weeks on holiday.
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
July 27, 2014, 09:53:47 AM
I was 2 weeks on holiday.
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
Nope, or the 2 weeks prior to that, or 2 weeks prior to that, or 2 weeks prior to that.
July 27, 2014, 06:02:12 AM
I was 2 weeks on holiday.
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
there are any special things happend the last two weeks?
July 26, 2014, 07:13:10 PM
This is pretty cool if its legit. Would be another way to provide a stamp of approval and show the full transparency of the owner and coin.
YC
YC
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/cryptocurrency-trust-index-demands-developers/2014/07/27
http://www.coinssource.com/trust/
I think this is something Digibyte should seriously consider.
Would be a good advertisement for new investors.
http://www.coinssource.com/trust/
I think this is something Digibyte should seriously consider.
Would be a good advertisement for new investors.
July 26, 2014, 06:36:51 PM
I personally also dislike X11 because my GPUs produced a very high tone (heared it because of watercooling) which makes me feel they are near of explosion. Second is, I saw people on DRK pools with a hashrate equivalent of nearly 2000 R9 290 GPUs. That's a sign for me that either some persons have more efficient mining software or FPGAs or both.
However, for any irrational reason, people still love X11 (infact, they could just throttle their scrypt to half the performance and would have the same effect...anyway). So I would integrate it into DGB for the ones who want to use it. It doesn't hurt people on other algos so - who cares? It's everybodys freedom to choose his favourite algo and might be it the worst.
I don't know enough about Groestl, didn't mine it myself. Just heared by Jared it is relative difficult to implement into the pool software(?). Would it be possible to include it as 6th algo instead of replacing another one?
However, for any irrational reason, people still love X11 (infact, they could just throttle their scrypt to half the performance and would have the same effect...anyway). So I would integrate it into DGB for the ones who want to use it. It doesn't hurt people on other algos so - who cares? It's everybodys freedom to choose his favourite algo and might be it the worst.
I don't know enough about Groestl, didn't mine it myself. Just heared by Jared it is relative difficult to implement into the pool software(?). Would it be possible to include it as 6th algo instead of replacing another one?
July 26, 2014, 06:17:50 PM
http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/cryptocurrency-trust-index-demands-developers/2014/07/27
http://www.coinssource.com/trust/
I think this is something Digibyte should seriously consider.
Would be a good advertisement for new investors.
http://www.coinssource.com/trust/
I think this is something Digibyte should seriously consider.
Would be a good advertisement for new investors.
July 26, 2014, 06:16:20 PM
Might be worth keeping the algos from the initial testing and make sure they all work in the test environment.
YC
My thinking is that as long as profitability is defined by ASIC technology, that’s going to be the defining determinant regarding price, and nothing else. And if the GPU were to set profitability (in the absence of ASIC) then price would be higher. The multi-pool is only an intermediary, and theoretically neutral.
That having been said, while I look upon the multi-pools as being benign, I don’t like the idea of merged mining at all.
I really like the Myriad combo though - that much I do know.
YC
My thinking is that as long as profitability is defined by ASIC technology, that’s going to be the defining determinant regarding price, and nothing else. And if the GPU were to set profitability (in the absence of ASIC) then price would be higher. The multi-pool is only an intermediary, and theoretically neutral.
That having been said, while I look upon the multi-pools as being benign, I don’t like the idea of merged mining at all.
I really like the Myriad combo though - that much I do know.
July 26, 2014, 03:12:54 PM
My thinking is that as long as profitability is defined by ASIC technology, that’s going to be the defining determinant regarding price, and nothing else. And if the GPU were to set profitability (in the absence of ASIC) then price would be higher. The multi-pool is only an intermediary, and theoretically neutral.
That having been said, while I look upon the multi-pools as being benign, I don’t like the idea of merged mining at all.
I really like the Myriad combo though - that much I do know.
July 26, 2014, 12:36:45 PM
In my research for my previous post I came across this article for Myriadcoin.
Myriadcoin announce Multi-Algo Merged Mining Auto-Exchanging Multi-Pool
http://coinjoint.info/myriadcoin-release-mammmp/
I know we keep piling more work on for the devs but I feel like if we went with this ‘Multi-Algo Merged Mining Auto-Exchanging Multi-Pool’ approach it would be well worth it to go with the more popular algorithms.
Here is a blurb from the article.
"What makes the release of MAMM[AE]MP so special is the merged mining which allows shares to be ‘recycled’. Shares that are unsuccessful in finding a Myriadcoin block will then be sent on to other coins. The means the hashpower can be reused without affecting the amount used mining Myriadcoin. Any mined coins can then be optionally auto-sold for Myriad meaning an overall increase in mining efficiency whilst putting upward pressure on prices."
This to me is fascinating and would be worth going with the other more popular algos ( ie...x11 over groestl for instance, then the spare x11 shares could be checked against all the other x11 coins ) . Since Digibyte is setting up the pool, perhaps this would be an additional feature that could be added?
Here is the release statement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R78lUtwnVB9o0CZpYnxWDSyZP-adgfcN4yfu1PM8jzQ/edit?pli=1
I understand the hesitation people have with merge mining but I feel that with this approach it would be possible to create a lot of upward buy pressure for DGB while not hurting the block chain.
Myriadcoin announce Multi-Algo Merged Mining Auto-Exchanging Multi-Pool
http://coinjoint.info/myriadcoin-release-mammmp/
I know we keep piling more work on for the devs but I feel like if we went with this ‘Multi-Algo Merged Mining Auto-Exchanging Multi-Pool’ approach it would be well worth it to go with the more popular algorithms.
Here is a blurb from the article.
"What makes the release of MAMM[AE]MP so special is the merged mining which allows shares to be ‘recycled’. Shares that are unsuccessful in finding a Myriadcoin block will then be sent on to other coins. The means the hashpower can be reused without affecting the amount used mining Myriadcoin. Any mined coins can then be optionally auto-sold for Myriad meaning an overall increase in mining efficiency whilst putting upward pressure on prices."
This to me is fascinating and would be worth going with the other more popular algos ( ie...x11 over groestl for instance, then the spare x11 shares could be checked against all the other x11 coins ) . Since Digibyte is setting up the pool, perhaps this would be an additional feature that could be added?
Here is the release statement https://docs.google.com/document/d/1R78lUtwnVB9o0CZpYnxWDSyZP-adgfcN4yfu1PM8jzQ/edit?pli=1
I understand the hesitation people have with merge mining but I feel that with this approach it would be possible to create a lot of upward buy pressure for DGB while not hurting the block chain.
July 26, 2014, 12:21:55 PM
I would also agree to having Groestl over X11. Honestly, I feel like a lot of miners don't really know about Groestl or the benefits of it. The coins that actually use it aren't that profitable so there is no reason for them to use it. We could give them a reason to change =).
As for Qubit, we used to have to worry about botnets so people stayed away from the CPU algos but as tablets and smartphones take over more and more of the market, PCs are quickly losing market share which also reduces the footprint of botnets.
One thing I worry about is the profit switching multipools. I am not worried about a 51% attack due to all the algorithms but I do worry about them just jumping in and dumping the coin to market. I know there isn't much we can do about that but it creates a lot of sell pressure which can be hard to combat. Look at vertcoin, technically innovative but since there are so few scrypt-n coins the multipools just mine and dump the crap out of it and the sell pressure just destroyed the coin. Maybe their switch to the Lyra2 algo will help.
Sha256 - multipool exists
Scrypt - multipool exists
Skein - I am not aware that multipools exists...yet
Qubit - botnets
Groestl - I am not aware that a multipool exists..yet
Keccak - I am not aware that multipools exists...yet
x11 - multipools exist
So, I guess in the end, I just worry that the algorithms we choose will just immediately get added to the multipools and digibyte will just get dumped and create too much sell pressure. Id like to hear some feedback on this, its a huge issue every cryptocoin faces.
The other issue too is the FPGAs that are being made. There are some reports that a few Chinese manufactures have arrays for x11 already. I have confirmed that several university's have each individual algorithm of x11 implemented separately but they aren't "optimized" and are used more to test the efficiency of the algorithm for the competitions.
Here is a link to hardware performance evaluations for the aglos mentioned above ( this is all way above my head ) .
http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/010.pdf
As for Qubit, we used to have to worry about botnets so people stayed away from the CPU algos but as tablets and smartphones take over more and more of the market, PCs are quickly losing market share which also reduces the footprint of botnets.
One thing I worry about is the profit switching multipools. I am not worried about a 51% attack due to all the algorithms but I do worry about them just jumping in and dumping the coin to market. I know there isn't much we can do about that but it creates a lot of sell pressure which can be hard to combat. Look at vertcoin, technically innovative but since there are so few scrypt-n coins the multipools just mine and dump the crap out of it and the sell pressure just destroyed the coin. Maybe their switch to the Lyra2 algo will help.
Sha256 - multipool exists
Scrypt - multipool exists
Skein - I am not aware that multipools exists...yet
Qubit - botnets
Groestl - I am not aware that a multipool exists..yet
Keccak - I am not aware that multipools exists...yet
x11 - multipools exist
So, I guess in the end, I just worry that the algorithms we choose will just immediately get added to the multipools and digibyte will just get dumped and create too much sell pressure. Id like to hear some feedback on this, its a huge issue every cryptocoin faces.
The other issue too is the FPGAs that are being made. There are some reports that a few Chinese manufactures have arrays for x11 already. I have confirmed that several university's have each individual algorithm of x11 implemented separately but they aren't "optimized" and are used more to test the efficiency of the algorithm for the competitions.
Here is a link to hardware performance evaluations for the aglos mentioned above ( this is all way above my head ) .
http://eprint.iacr.org/2010/010.pdf
July 26, 2014, 10:54:36 AM
I've got to agree on the no to x11.
July 26, 2014, 05:05:33 AM
Didn't hear anything about the negotiations with the brick&mortar stores. Did you make any progress there or is this on standby until you fixed the flaws, Jared?
A lot of this is occurring in the background as we speak. Do to NDA's etc we cannot give any more details until we are ready to publicly release the information. Good things lay ahead. Our primary focus right now getting the multi-algo update out. We have now successfully compiled different algos and we are in the process of testing them.
What do you all think about these five algos as a unique DigiByte combo?
1) Sha256
2) Scrypt
3) Skein (2nd runner up NIST competition)
4) Keccack (considered to be the most secure algo after winning NIST competition as SHA-3 finalsit)
5) x11 (Miners seem to really love it)
Which five algos would you like to see?
After making sure the Myriad set up worked for DigiByte we decided it would be best if we did something unqie if possible. What are all your thoughts?
There have been some very good suggestions on here recently. Thank you all for contributing!
You know I like Groestl, so I won't bore you with tirades and exclamation marks. I believe that Groestl should be included for a multitude of reasons, but I'll limit this post to just mentioning my most important argument here and leave it to the rest of the community of Groestl believers to add to the list.
If you leave Groestl out of the 5 algo mix, you'd be shunning the energy efficient GPU miners. One of the strongest arguments for the 5 algo mix is to include everybody, to make the coin a home for all miners, and hopefully on the most equitable basis possible. By leaving out groestl, you'd be leaving out the best of the energy efficient GPU algos.
Qubit is the most efficient CPU algo, but I promised to limit this to one.
x11 = total crap (sorry, but I couldn't resist)
All IMVHO of course.
July 25, 2014, 08:08:14 PM
This is great information! Thank you for sharing!
Actually the block rewards are the same if I am not mistaken
It is my understanding as well that the block reward will stay the same.
The percentage payouts per MH/s are very different depending independently on each algo's hashrate and resulting difficulty. This leaves the SHA and scrypt miners at a distinct disadvantage to begin with (you lose money mining with SHA even with ASIC, and while you lose money mining scrypt with GPU, you can *still* make money using ASIC), but I would still prefer modified payouts as well. Difficulties seem to be joined at the hip. It's roughly a .0349:1 ratio per MH/s regardless of the algo (which means that the same difficulty is applied to to each individual algo given its hashrate at the time).
Here's a little study I did on MYR:
Yes I have used this page. On that page you have an information how many coins you are getting per unified MH unit.
340 MYR / MH day by Sricpt
2805 MYR / MH day by Skein
Of course this data fluctuates with every block a bit.
My SKEIN GPU rig has power usage 300 W / 1 MH = 2805/300 = 9,35 MYR / W
My SCRIPT ZEUS Blizzard miner has 38 W / 1 MH = 340/38 = 8,94 MYR / W
Okay, I’ve been going over the numbers, and your numbers are looking better and better, but . . .
Should it be the case that you are correct, the ASIC issue would be mute since effective reward adjustment would be already happening on an individual miner, per MH/s, basis.
Looking at things from the total number of coins mined and their distribution to individual miners on a 1 MH/s basis, we move in your direction, but are unable to arrive at a similar conclusion with respect to Scrypt (on the other hand, the numbers suggest that SHA-256 should be effectively neutralized).
I’m going to use the numbers taken from the following snapshot.
Let’s divide the 120,000 coins mined each hour by the 5 algos doing the mining.
That leaves us with 24,000 coins, per hour, for each algo.
If we then divide those 24,000 coins by the respective algo hashrates, we come up with the following results:
Scrypt = 14.916096 coins per hour per MH/s
SHA-256 = .0011722 coins per hour per MH/s
Groestl = 2.2573363 coins per hour per MH/s
Skein = .3992414 coins per hour per MH/s
Qubit = 8.4299262 coins per hour per MH/s
That’s simply dividing the reward by the collective hashrates. The per hour, per MH/s distribution is what it is.
Same machine DAILY results would be roughly the following:
Scrypt = 357.9863 coins @ 1 MH/s
SHA-256 = 28.1328 coins @ 1 GH/s
Groestl = 920.9932 coins @ 17 MH/s
Skein = 1197.7242 coins @ 120 MH/s
Qubit = 1143.0979 coins @ 5.65 MH/s
That’s how the global numbers are divvyed up (give or take a few KH/s).
Why would the SHA-256 settle for so little? Do they really have much choice? Anywhere else to go? . . . instead of turning their ASICs into very expensive paperweights . . .
By these numbers, Scrypt ASIC is still hauling them in (on a relative basis) and have a long way to go before falling below breakeven (when using the 7 watt gridseed as electricity cost basis, even more so).
So, is this issue a non-issue with respect to SHA-256? Or still an issue since they are so desperate as to keep mining when it’s a losing proposition and throwing good money after bad?
These numbers suggest to me that the Scrypt ASIC continues to be an issue - until their numbers grow sufficiently so as to reduce their per MH/s rewards below profitability. Just where that equilibrium lay is still an unknown, but we can be quite sure it’s at some lower price rather than a higher price . . . as long as ASIC is part of the picture (unless their numbers and crowd herding gets as crazy as the SHA-256 crowd).
BTW, what are the components of your SKEIN GPU rig?
Gents, a question... First off all, I think the price of the coin is very undervalued...
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
Actually the block rewards are the same if I am not mistaken
It is my understanding as well that the block reward will stay the same.
The percentage payouts per MH/s are very different depending independently on each algo's hashrate and resulting difficulty. This leaves the SHA and scrypt miners at a distinct disadvantage to begin with (you lose money mining with SHA even with ASIC, and while you lose money mining scrypt with GPU, you can *still* make money using ASIC), but I would still prefer modified payouts as well. Difficulties seem to be joined at the hip. It's roughly a .0349:1 ratio per MH/s regardless of the algo (which means that the same difficulty is applied to to each individual algo given its hashrate at the time).
Here's a little study I did on MYR:
Do you really think so? Where are you getting your data? Blocks are being mined at an equal rate (more or less) regardless of the algo being used. http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com And the block reward is the same.
Yes I have used this page. On that page you have an information how many coins you are getting per unified MH unit.
340 MYR / MH day by Sricpt
2805 MYR / MH day by Skein
Of course this data fluctuates with every block a bit.
My SKEIN GPU rig has power usage 300 W / 1 MH = 2805/300 = 9,35 MYR / W
My SCRIPT ZEUS Blizzard miner has 38 W / 1 MH = 340/38 = 8,94 MYR / W
Okay, I’ve been going over the numbers, and your numbers are looking better and better, but . . .
Should it be the case that you are correct, the ASIC issue would be mute since effective reward adjustment would be already happening on an individual miner, per MH/s, basis.
Looking at things from the total number of coins mined and their distribution to individual miners on a 1 MH/s basis, we move in your direction, but are unable to arrive at a similar conclusion with respect to Scrypt (on the other hand, the numbers suggest that SHA-256 should be effectively neutralized).
I’m going to use the numbers taken from the following snapshot.
Let’s divide the 120,000 coins mined each hour by the 5 algos doing the mining.
That leaves us with 24,000 coins, per hour, for each algo.
If we then divide those 24,000 coins by the respective algo hashrates, we come up with the following results:
Scrypt = 14.916096 coins per hour per MH/s
SHA-256 = .0011722 coins per hour per MH/s
Groestl = 2.2573363 coins per hour per MH/s
Skein = .3992414 coins per hour per MH/s
Qubit = 8.4299262 coins per hour per MH/s
That’s simply dividing the reward by the collective hashrates. The per hour, per MH/s distribution is what it is.
Same machine DAILY results would be roughly the following:
Scrypt = 357.9863 coins @ 1 MH/s
SHA-256 = 28.1328 coins @ 1 GH/s
Groestl = 920.9932 coins @ 17 MH/s
Skein = 1197.7242 coins @ 120 MH/s
Qubit = 1143.0979 coins @ 5.65 MH/s
That’s how the global numbers are divvyed up (give or take a few KH/s).
Why would the SHA-256 settle for so little? Do they really have much choice? Anywhere else to go? . . . instead of turning their ASICs into very expensive paperweights . . .
By these numbers, Scrypt ASIC is still hauling them in (on a relative basis) and have a long way to go before falling below breakeven (when using the 7 watt gridseed as electricity cost basis, even more so).
So, is this issue a non-issue with respect to SHA-256? Or still an issue since they are so desperate as to keep mining when it’s a losing proposition and throwing good money after bad?
These numbers suggest to me that the Scrypt ASIC continues to be an issue - until their numbers grow sufficiently so as to reduce their per MH/s rewards below profitability. Just where that equilibrium lay is still an unknown, but we can be quite sure it’s at some lower price rather than a higher price . . . as long as ASIC is part of the picture (unless their numbers and crowd herding gets as crazy as the SHA-256 crowd).
BTW, what are the components of your SKEIN GPU rig?
July 25, 2014, 08:06:11 PM
Didn't hear anything about the negotiations with the brick&mortar stores. Did you make any progress there or is this on standby until you fixed the flaws, Jared?
A lot of this is occurring in the background as we speak. Do to NDA's etc we cannot give any more details until we are ready to publicly release the information. Good things lay ahead. Our primary focus right now getting the multi-algo update out. We have now successfully compiled different algos and we are in the process of testing them.
What do you all think about these five algos as a unique DigiByte combo?
1) Sha256
2) Scrypt
3) Skein (2nd runner up NIST competition)
4) Keccack (considered to be the most secure algo after winning NIST competition as SHA-3 finalsit)
5) x11 (Miners seem to really love it)
Which five algos would you like to see?
After making sure the Myriad set up worked for DigiByte we decided it would be best if we did something unqie if possible. What are all your thoughts?
There have been some very good suggestions on here recently. Thank you all for contributing!
July 25, 2014, 06:17:22 PM
Didn't hear anything about the negotiations with the brick&mortar stores. Did you make any progress there or is this on standby until you fixed the flaws, Jared?
July 25, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
Gents, a question... First off all, I think the price of the coin is very undervalued...
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
Actually the block rewards are the same if I am not mistaken
It is my understanding as well that the block reward will stay the same.
The percentage payouts per MH/s are very different depending independently on each algo's hashrate and resulting difficulty. This leaves the SHA and scrypt miners at a distinct disadvantage to begin with (you lose money mining with SHA even with ASIC, and while you lose money mining scrypt with GPU, you can *still* make money using ASIC), but I would still prefer modified payouts as well. Difficulties seem to be joined at the hip. It's roughly a .0349:1 ratio per MH/s regardless of the algo (which means that the same difficulty is applied to to each individual algo given its hashrate at the time).
Here's a little study I did on MYR:
Do you really think so? Where are you getting your data? Blocks are being mined at an equal rate (more or less) regardless of the algo being used. http://myriad.theblockexplorer.com And the block reward is the same.
Yes I have used this page. On that page you have an information how many coins you are getting per unified MH unit.
340 MYR / MH day by Sricpt
2805 MYR / MH day by Skein
Of course this data fluctuates with every block a bit.
My SKEIN GPU rig has power usage 300 W / 1 MH = 2805/300 = 9,35 MYR / W
My SCRIPT ZEUS Blizzard miner has 38 W / 1 MH = 340/38 = 8,94 MYR / W
Okay, I’ve been going over the numbers, and your numbers are looking better and better, but . . .
Should it be the case that you are correct, the ASIC issue would be mute since effective reward adjustment would be already happening on an individual miner, per MH/s, basis.
Looking at things from the total number of coins mined and their distribution to individual miners on a 1 MH/s basis, we move in your direction, but are unable to arrive at a similar conclusion with respect to Scrypt (on the other hand, the numbers suggest that SHA-256 should be effectively neutralized).
I’m going to use the numbers taken from the following snapshot.
Let’s divide the 120,000 coins mined each hour by the 5 algos doing the mining.
That leaves us with 24,000 coins, per hour, for each algo.
If we then divide those 24,000 coins by the respective algo hashrates, we come up with the following results:
Scrypt = 14.916096 coins per hour per MH/s
SHA-256 = .0011722 coins per hour per MH/s
Groestl = 2.2573363 coins per hour per MH/s
Skein = .3992414 coins per hour per MH/s
Qubit = 8.4299262 coins per hour per MH/s
That’s simply dividing the reward by the collective hashrates. The per hour, per MH/s distribution is what it is.
Same machine DAILY results would be roughly the following:
Scrypt = 357.9863 coins @ 1 MH/s
SHA-256 = 28.1328 coins @ 1 GH/s
Groestl = 920.9932 coins @ 17 MH/s
Skein = 1197.7242 coins @ 120 MH/s
Qubit = 1143.0979 coins @ 5.65 MH/s
That’s how the global numbers are divvyed up (give or take a few KH/s).
Why would the SHA-256 settle for so little? Do they really have much choice? Anywhere else to go? . . . instead of turning their ASICs into very expensive paperweights . . .
By these numbers, Scrypt ASIC is still hauling them in (on a relative basis) and have a long way to go before falling below breakeven (when using the 7 watt gridseed as electricity cost basis, even more so).
So, is this issue a non-issue with respect to SHA-256? Or still an issue since they are so desperate as to keep mining when it’s a losing proposition and throwing good money after bad?
These numbers suggest to me that the Scrypt ASIC continues to be an issue - until their numbers grow sufficiently so as to reduce their per MH/s rewards below profitability. Just where that equilibrium lay is still an unknown, but we can be quite sure it’s at some lower price rather than a higher price . . . as long as ASIC is part of the picture (unless their numbers and crowd herding gets as crazy as the SHA-256 crowd).
BTW, what are the components of your SKEIN GPU rig?
July 25, 2014, 11:41:53 AM
Gents, a question... First off all, I think the price of the coin is very undervalued...
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
Actually the block rewards are the same if I am not mistaken
It is my understanding as well that the block reward will stay the same.
July 25, 2014, 11:38:14 AM
Gents, a question... First off all, I think the price of the coin is very undervalued...
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
Actually the block rewards are the same if I am not mistaken
July 25, 2014, 11:28:20 AM
Gents, a question... First off all, I think the price of the coin is very undervalued...
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
However, when we have multiple mining on the go, this will even create more DGB coins...
Don't you think this will drive the price even further down due to high inflation ? Thank you.
Jump to: