Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 909. (Read 3059047 times)

Mining pools are mining the most DGBs, not individuals.

Go to this webpage to see who has found the majority of the past 500 blocks: https://www.miners-pool.eu/#!/mining-breakdown/DGB

I did couple minutes of research on the individual addresses and found a couple addresses that matched up with pools.

www.theblocksfactory.com                     skein           83   17%
digihash.co                                                groestl   77   15%
DNo5wca2ekD3tqLpfHDvz5bMffhw4ncFZN          sha256d   39   8% (Hamsterpool)
DGdSTXMwJDdrGi6ixj7USHCVZ3CpK1pJ4w      scrypt           37   7% (unknown)
DS6ry5v7xeuBSRsxEubKCgPSWAozkcqaXt       scrypt           30   6% (multipool.us)
www.theblocksfactory.com                           qubit           20   4%

So, out of the top 57% of total DGB hash, 50% is pools, not individuals. Unless your statements were about individual miners mining in pools, I don't see how there are individual miners skewing the results of each algorithm...

A quick look at the list shows that the largest "individual" share of hashrate for each algorithm is a pool, not an individual. (Except maybe scrypt, we need a better list of pools on the main post so that addresses can be researched).

(sorry for the formatting, hard to get stuff to line up)

Well, nothing is impossible. Perhaps it is a pool like the one you have described that is attacking DigiByte or all the other Alt's t.

Hmm oke, Well i really think that when Digibytes hits the mainstream channels (and a higher price) miners all over the world will jump on Digibyte and then insta sells this on the market. So to compensate this a multipool like that could help the sell presure. Maybe a multipool with some merged mining on dgb?  Lol just thinking out of my head and maybe im just talking bs now.

Ah, I see. Well i guess that is possible but the required security can only really be achieved by having a massive pool of miners mining DGB itself.

Yeah but then a multipool that mines other coins and then auto buys Digibytes and the miner then will get Digibytes in his wallet.

Is that a suggestion 24? In many ways is that not what DigiHash is?

I'm not a pro at the mining side of crypto but what about a multipool that pays out in DGB?

That's right but let's say you missed the glory days of SHA256 mining.
It is already well built, it hass to be harder over time and SHA is the algo that can make more coin than any other algo.
However, I used to have around 5TH.s a few weeks ago, took it off, below 50 sats now.
They highest price DGB ever was after the fork was 125 sats and one miner had 10TH.s and I had 8TH.s
That's your network security value.
However, some pissant miners are hellbent on making SHA256 and ASIC in general fail.
They're just stupid, broke and envious trolls, they don't understand the mining industry at all.
They will be long gone and SHA will still be the kingpin of crypto mining.

What you guys omit is that every algo has it's pros and cons.
-SHA256 gets you the most coins but you mine at a loss, 99% of the time; mine for the investment only not for fun.
-Skrypt is a happy medium between coin production and profitability, not even sure if it is profitable.
-QuBit, Skein, Groesti are all small coin earners but are the most profitable... no scaling here though, as SHA and Skrypt can.

I only left one S1 miner at TBF but right now, I need to make more Bitcoin to buy hardware...
Diff goes up stagnantly but I'm not selling DGB's to buy hardware so I need to mine some Bitcoin.

Good teamwork mate

so much for free speech then.

.......new comment added

They removed it already

Nice 

Just add a reaction

Now is a perfect time to fill your bags with Digibyte.

Excellent explanation!

+1000

Made one more wallet on another PC and made a transaction to witness how fast I got the first confirmation. Was Ultraspeed compare to Bitcoin. This could be even faster with the next coming fork where the expected blocktime is 15s. Hopefully we don't sacrifice any part of security with this change.

I personally think any crypto to have a chance to make it mainstream must at least meet these two conditions:
Fast confirmation and high limit of TPS (Transactions Per Second) and DigiByte has them. Multi-algo for Cpu, Gpu and Asic which in theory everyone can compete is a very important bonus. These things tell us that the team is serious with the coin and things they do are for longveity, for the future.

DigiByte the coin the all wanna clone

Hey E. I was wondering where you were lately, nice to hear from you. Don't worry I won't be mining BTC really, I am really trying to support DigiByte network was even thinking about putting up a 10millionDGB neverspend!
There is no point mining if you have to dump to pay for it, I think there is something else going on too.

Hi Jumbley.  I've also noticed the weighting against SHA (and it seems scrypt a bit as well).  groestl seems to find a huge number of blocks comparatively.  I'm not complaining.  Like you, I also understand the objective.  I completely understand your points about moving back to mining BTC and - I guess just trading for DGB from the mining rewards.  But, because I don't mine SHA, I'm not going to move my equipment back to mining other scrypt coins.  I'm not as obsessive with mining as I have been in the past.  Anymore, I run my equipment when I decide to run it (or remember to turn it on) ... here and there ... I don't run it enough to worry anymore about returns or costs.  It's nice to get some DGB.

You mentioned 60 sat.  Clearly, the trade value effects most peoples' mining decisions.  We (meaning the DGB community) clearly see exchange volume from 2 primary places.  (1) From miners.  And, (2) from active traders (and investors).  Probably there's lots of overlap between those 2 categories.  But, there's also probably some problems that come from the situation.  A couple of weeks ago, I was reading an interesting article about market microstructures and symmetry assumptions in predicting stock price, or evaluating price manipulation (the article is a bit dated - 1992 - but it was interesting).  Basically, the general assumption is that over time there is relative symmetry between buyers and sellers in an exchange ... but this assumption can be wrong.  When there is an asymmetric relationship it leads to differences in the way buy and sell orders effect the bid and ask prices.  The article looked at the role of "liquidity traders" ... people who have to sell for external reasons (i.e. miners who have to sell to cover costs of electricity).  The problem with liquidity traders (miners who mostly sell) is that they have less choice of time and price than buyers.  Buyers can CHOOSE when they buy, and at what price they are willing to buy.  But, a person who NEEDS to sell to cover costs doesn't have as much choice about time or price.  Therefore the sell orders and buy orders effect the price movement in unequal ways.  We can see the effects of liquidity traders in DGB through the number of small sell orders placed throughout the day, whereas buy orders usually seem to be larger and less frequent.

What would be fantastic is if DGB could work toward implementing difficulty and variations between the different mining algorithms in a way that protected both the network and the value of the coin.  Although that would be impossible to perfectly achieve, it would be really cool.  And, while I have no idea how it could be achieved, I'm sure that someone smarter than me could test it out.  I suppose the best solution will just happen over time as we add additional variables to the analysis of trade ... (i.e. stores and people buying DGB to spend).

Really can't believe that someone hasn't put in the comments; No bitcoin is not the future of micropayments DigiByte is

or is Bitcoin about to fork to a Digibyte clone?