No. 1TH/s of block erupters is the same as 1TH/s from an 5 overclocked Antminer S1, which is the same as 1TH/s from an underclocked S5.
The network has a perceived hash rate based upon the time to solve blocks. Every 2016 blocks the network adjusts itself to say, "what would I have needed the difficulty to be to make the last 2016 blocks take exactly 2 weeks?"
The variant hash rate reported by sites like bitcoinwisdom and others reflects this. Sure, there might be new hardware added, and some turned off. There's also just the inherent swings due to block solve times.
Topic: Diifculty Vs Hashrate (Read 2439 times)
Im going to rehash this one again cause its still happening.. & maybe i wasn't clear with what i was trying to say
Difficulty History
Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate
Apr 05 2015 49,446,390,688 5.84% 353,951,052 GH/s
Mar 22 2015 46,717,549,645 -1.50% 334,417,246 GH/s
Mar 08 2015 47,427,554,951 1.59% 339,499,662 GH/s
Feb 22 2015 46,684,376,317 5.01% 334,179,783 GH/s
Feb 09 2015 44,455,415,962 7.71% 318,224,263 GH/s
Jan 27 2015 41,272,873,895 -6.14% 295,442,739 GH/s
Is it that people are upgrading there old gear for new and when they switch off there old gear the new gear is only just replacing the old..
So say i had 1000gh of blade miners which then i upgraded to a S5 could this be whats causing the slight rise in diff only then to have it fall the week after??
Difficulty History
Date Difficulty Change Hash Rate
Apr 05 2015 49,446,390,688 5.84% 353,951,052 GH/s
Mar 22 2015 46,717,549,645 -1.50% 334,417,246 GH/s
Mar 08 2015 47,427,554,951 1.59% 339,499,662 GH/s
Feb 22 2015 46,684,376,317 5.01% 334,179,783 GH/s
Feb 09 2015 44,455,415,962 7.71% 318,224,263 GH/s
Jan 27 2015 41,272,873,895 -6.14% 295,442,739 GH/s
Is it that people are upgrading there old gear for new and when they switch off there old gear the new gear is only just replacing the old..
So say i had 1000gh of blade miners which then i upgraded to a S5 could this be whats causing the slight rise in diff only then to have it fall the week after??
Eh... I guess if you're factoring protocol lag into it, technically there's a bit of an offset. The answer to that is run a local stratum proxy that communicates with the network to get a job and then distributes it to local miners? I don't know how many stratum proxies do that, or if they just forward requests. If you were operating at the scale where it actually mattered, you could run a local full node or pool software.
So a person with a 1TH machine would be better off that a person with 1000 GH machines right??
Even thou the computing power is the same... Cause the person with 1Th only has to ask the network once for a work block at a higher diff..
Even thou the computing power is the same... Cause the person with 1Th only has to ask the network once for a work block at a higher diff..
If I'm thinking right, any network hashrate index will be calculated based off some averaging of recent block solve times. There's no way to talk to every miner in the world and sum up their total output into an exact figure. This means that the network hashrate index is calculated in the same way difficulty is calculated, just on a shorter timescale. I don't know who the authority is on nethash but it seems unlikely they use a 2016-block average. Since the nethash is calculated with a more recent data set, it's prone to short-term variations as "global luck" changes here and there, but the time average should match the diff.
So - since the difficulty and nethash are calculated off intersecting subsets of the same data, it's not terribly likely that the nethash will increase without a subsequent increase in diff - on average, they should always increase or decrease in proportion. On the graph you linked, do you notice how the green line always intersects the diffchange at a diffchange? That green line represents a 2016-block estimate of hashrate, which when it comes time to calculate a diffchange means it's based on the exact same dataset that the diffchange is. Since the lines intersect at every diffchange, you can be sure the average network hashrate is not increasing disproportionately from the network difficulty.
The SHA256 hashing algorithm's output is suitably random/chaotic that just because you can push out 1TH doesn't mean you're more than 1000 times more likely to find a block than someone running 1GH. On average, 1TH will find EXACTLY 1000 times more blocks than 1GH (or 1PH/1TH, as is more likely these days). Every single hash has basically equal odds of finding a block regardless how many of them happen within one machine or another in a certain amount of time.
So - since the difficulty and nethash are calculated off intersecting subsets of the same data, it's not terribly likely that the nethash will increase without a subsequent increase in diff - on average, they should always increase or decrease in proportion. On the graph you linked, do you notice how the green line always intersects the diffchange at a diffchange? That green line represents a 2016-block estimate of hashrate, which when it comes time to calculate a diffchange means it's based on the exact same dataset that the diffchange is. Since the lines intersect at every diffchange, you can be sure the average network hashrate is not increasing disproportionately from the network difficulty.
The SHA256 hashing algorithm's output is suitably random/chaotic that just because you can push out 1TH doesn't mean you're more than 1000 times more likely to find a block than someone running 1GH. On average, 1TH will find EXACTLY 1000 times more blocks than 1GH (or 1PH/1TH, as is more likely these days). Every single hash has basically equal odds of finding a block regardless how many of them happen within one machine or another in a certain amount of time.
Ive been long watching
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
and have been watching the hashrate vs difficulty scale & have been noticing the diff is nearly upto 50b but the hash rate has bearly changed.
As bigger & bigger miners come on board is the difficulty getting harder even thou the hash rate is not going up??
Is this cause terahash + miners are able to solve the problem quicker & does this mean the hash rate does not need to climb higher than it already is as long as the miners put to use hash at a higher rate??
This then in effect will push all miners out of the game eventually...
https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
and have been watching the hashrate vs difficulty scale & have been noticing the diff is nearly upto 50b but the hash rate has bearly changed.
As bigger & bigger miners come on board is the difficulty getting harder even thou the hash rate is not going up??
Is this cause terahash + miners are able to solve the problem quicker & does this mean the hash rate does not need to climb higher than it already is as long as the miners put to use hash at a higher rate??
This then in effect will push all miners out of the game eventually...
Jump to: