Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 548. (Read 3059029 times)

Actually its not NVIDIA, its a single AMD MSI 280x.  My "gaming" rig.  Undervolting is the key, you cant do it with every card which is why I went with the MSI 280x.  Back when I had my rigs once I figured out how to properly undervolt I was saving about $50 a month in electricity with only sacrificing a small amount of hashing power. 

Mb soon is going to big pump.

This is most probably an arbitrage bot. I can't imagine someone is buying and selling DGB at the same price!

I was looking at the DGB trade history and saw this:

What does that bot do? Just create volume? Why would you sell and buy back, or are those 2 different accounts?

I absolutely agree that this is not a pressing issue; nonetheless, an ROI on per unit electricity cost (even using a random number - variations in local costs are essentially irrelevant) baseline comparison between algos is something that must be addressed long term, for the reasons outlined in my prediction posted above, and I'm encouraged by your expressed willingness to join in with the analysis, of course, without a doubt, when you have time and at your leisure - it would be ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

Great to see your presense Kayahoga, as always. Those are some very impressive results indeed! Let me guess, a dual card NVIDIA rig?

Phenomenal.

I don't have time atm to actually plug in some real numbers, my argument is more based on the fact that you will have a huge variability in electricity costs so any one standard that we would implement (such as the US average, lol at expected US exceptionalism btw) would likely disadvantage other people somewhere else potentially using another algo. As you've said it goes from "free" electricity to very expensive electricity in parts of the EU. I just don't think we would a) find a reasonable electricity price standard and b) be able to implement this on a codebase level without adding unnecessary complications (or hard forks every month). If I'm free later I will dig into the numbers but I think the argument about viability of implementation and finding a correct price standard stands on its own and doesn't really have to be backed up by data right here and now (if you like program some code to calculate the standard deviation in electricity costs around the world and we can discuss if its a significant factor).

And some people have "free" electricity, but the fact that this variable "varies" should not preclude serious analysis using the scientific method isolating independent variables using real numbers and a baseline independent variable such as the national average US electricity cost (the fact that electricity costs vary even within the US is going to prevent us from doing a serious baseline comparison between algos?). Or, even if you like, a random number for that independent variable of per unit electricity cost. Can you show us how the ROI on operating costs is equal between algos using the same fixed variable for each? My analysis based on The Blocks Factory data suggests not (one must also remember to adjust hashrate equivalents between algos - 1GH/s of SHA = 1MH/s scrypt, for example - etc.). The idea that a huge increase in the hashrate of any one given algo only affects the diff of that particular algo and thus magically levels the playing field is also ludicrous, unless, that is, there was a major undocumented change in the DigiSpeed update. Please don't take this as unfounded criticism. My numbers suggest something very different from what you suggest, and I think that my analysis is quite rigourous and merits serious response - I'm asking for clarification and/or documentation so I can better understand; I am not attacking.

I'm sorry but this is incorrect.

The point behind having 5 different hashing algorithms with variable electricity costs is to decentralise the system further, not make it more centralised. Take this example; Alice lives in the US and is a pro-gamer, she loves gaming and has come across digibyte gaming, learnt a little about blockchains and would like to mine some digibyte. She already has an awesome gaming rig and she's been told by awesome members of this community that she can mine some digibytes using her gaming rig, she thinks awesome, hooks up here gaming rig to the digibyte network and voila shes mining. Alice has cost of electricity x per hash.

Now Bob comes a long and he's a big chinese crypto geek who owns an ASIC mining farm. He finds digibytes and thinks, what an awesome coin! Im going to start mining some of that. Bob has cost of electricity y per hash.

Now Alice and Bob being in the US and China obviously have different variable electricity costs (for sake of argument lets assume that the US is more expensive). Lets put some numbers in the game. Let x=10 cents per hash (these are imaginary numbers) and y=5 per hash. Now if ASIC and GPU mining would have the same electricity cost per hash (as I believe your suggesting) it is obvious that Bob would be able to mine more digibytes per unit electricity cost. On the other hand if we leave digibyte the way it is (also taking into account the wisdom of Jared on this one) Assuming Alice gets twice the amount of digibytes per unit electricity cost than Bob (for sake of argument) so they will actually be mining the same amount of digibytes per unit electricity cost!

My point being this; your not taking into the account the variability (both in geography and time) of electricity costs around the world. I think the intention of having the 5 mining algorithms as they are is precisely to get a better distributed/decentralised network (especially geographically).

Also implementing your suggestion on a programming level would be quite hard because you would somehow have to take into account the time variations of electricity costs around the whole world and constantly keep updating this as one of your parameters. Not only that but you would immediately create unequalness due to the geographical variation of electricity costs.

I hope this puts the issue to rest and we can get on with some more interesting ideas/suggestions/projects

I don't want to get entangled in this too much but I just wanted to mention that I've been able to undervolt my 280x and mine qubit to get about 11 MH/s and that only runs at about 150 watts according to my Kill-a-watt.  11 Mh/s is roughly about 5k dgb per day which will put my 150 watts at about 3.6kw per day.  Still not as efficient a sha256 asic but a lot less than the 9.9kwh mentioned above.  I am guessing that's for either Skein or Scrypt on a GPU. 

I read your posts and saw you weren't starting trouble on purpose, just messing with you.

DGB is a great price right now; I missed it cause I have no BTC to buy any with, should have done it when I had some last year.  Maybe something will change.

We should get a massive Bitcoin run in the next few months and especially 2nd half.  Good times, brother.

Take care...

I’m not intentionally starting shit with anyone Vlad, just saying what I think but that can be interpreted as starting shit, we both know don’t we.  You are right this is a good coin and I really don’t think you are actually too late to benefit, just a bit late to get it for a song but it’s still excellent value in my book.

Haha, you still starting shit with people, Jumbley?  lol

You found a good coin; although I missed it. 

Good luck!

I’m going to use these figures, pulled out of a post a little way back by a well know member of our community. I’m going to consider that these figures are in the ball park of correctness but it does not particularly matter for the purpose of this exercise.

5000 DGB of mining

SHA-256 ASIC   using   2.4KWh

Scrypt ASIC        using  7.5KWh

GPU                     using  9.9KWh

Then using some special magic, I’m going to make SHA size of the network just over 4 times bigger and the Scrypt size about 1.3 times bigger. Abracadabra, they are all on an equal footing and the DigiByte network is considerably stronger than it was before I used the special magic. I’m going to need to use a bit more magic again when the latest ASIC technology hits mining.

I know I don’t really have any special magic to use, that’s why knights are so important!

We could follow the other suggestion that has been made to tackle this issue and do away with the ASIC part of the network and replace it with other algorithms but I will argue that this would require more hard forks and would actually leave our network weaker than it is already.

The first year history book about DigiByte will be available for £6.99 ($9.99) (reduced from £8.99 ($11.99) in the next hour or so.  

Please could this book be advertised in the opening post of this thread?  In particular, I think newbies would love to read how DigiByte began.  The book details the beginning of the coin in an unbiased perspective.  

Link UK: http://www.amazon.co.uk/DigiByte-History-First-Christopher-Thompson/dp/1519602804/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Link USA: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1519602804/ref=s9_simh_gw_g14_i2_r?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=desktop-1&pf_rd_r=1SK7MTAX49CXVDH1JBCT&pf_rd_t=36701&pf_rd_p=2079475242&pf_rd_i=desktop

Aside: I love your writing prowess. PM me if you're for hire.

http://cryptomining-blog.com/7212-cryptochainer-downloadable-blockchains-for-faster-wallet-synchronization/


Check out Cryptochainer, a faster way to sync the blockchain!

Oh, I know I'm the bad guy, but bear with me. I'd just like to officially go on the public record with a prediction I made in private.

. . . mark my words, the difference between becoming the cryptographic currency used worldwide to which it aspires, and a slow certain death, will be whether or not the proportionate payout per unit of electricity invested in variable costs is made equal among algos. It’s as simple as that: success or failure will depend on making GPU mining equally profitable with specialized ASIC mining on a per unit of electricity cost basis. It's the difference between thousands of active nodes that slowly diminish to a handful of people whose only common bond is their virtual “friendship”, and hundreds of thousands that grows to millions based on a common use of a serious and stable, extremely safe cryptographic digitalized money and means of exchange.

Just as important as previous innovations have been in getting DigiByte where it is, the complete leveling of real economically rational participatory opportunity is the cornerstone for whether DigiByte will be taken to the next level or not, and without it, a truly worldwide distributed network is impossible. Mark my words.

And, for anyone who might be wondering, that's not THE issue. It's the OTHER issue that's much much more important.

HR LET IT GO. MOVE ON.

You might want to have a chat with www.litepaid.com, I think they can help you out!