Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 175. (Read 3313076 times)
If ASICS prices were to fall then there will be fewer complaints, but it is inevitable for any coin that some hardware will be built specifically to mine it if there is money to be made from it. One might trigger a whole new argument and bring up POS
What if graphics card companies are testing their new cards? isn't that also unfair?
Someone will always have more money for the better hardware
Someone will always have more money for the better hardware
I heard a rumor a few weeks back (Jan 19th) regarding ASICs on the network - supposedly there was a batch of 5000 miners manufactured for a private Chinese farm that went online just recently. It seems to be pretty feasible after comparing against some analytics done on the nonce ranges of historic blocks:
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
Quote
<@solar> i got some confirmation about asics too
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
So after a thorough analysis of the winning nonces for blocks 1760000-1765000 I can say this about ASICs that are on the network now:
320 cores (10 chips x 32 cores?)
each core processes nonces with 2^22 step - from 0 to ~1.34e9
Single core speed is 400 h/s - calculated from the area of spikes (which come with 2^22 step) on winning nonce graph
Overall ASIC device speed = 128 kh/s (400*320)
Around 4000-4500 ASICs online now
M5M400 they do mine on public pools: f2pool, viabtc, poolin - they all submit blocks with winning nonces strictly in ASIC nonce ranges
all 3 are Chinese pools ironically
so we can just count them in "unknown hashrate" part
which leaves only 230 MH/s known
and 641 MH/s = almost exactly 5000 * 128 kh/s solar
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
Another Hard Fork Coming for Monero [XMR]? Analysis says ASIC Dominates Monero Hashrate
https://coingape.com/asic-dominates-monero-hashrate/
Quote
the current network hashrate likely consists of 85.2% ASICs (5400 ASIC machines) and some die-hard GPU miners and botnets.
This is why hard forks purely for banning ASIC miners are dangerous in my opinion, they lower your network strength (making it vulnerable to 51% attacks) while ASIC manufacturers
will find ways to circumvent it. Best is to just allow ASIC miners and have them spread their hashrate evenly across pools (difficult to arrange, but not impossible).
Monero tries to be fair for all so ASICS (which are not easily obtainable for normal miners) are unfair advantage. So it is not like ASICS are bad but more like they are bad because so few can get them.
This situation is not new. It was the same year ago. As soon as it is known that algo will be changed, those ASICS will be sold. I just hope people are not getting fooled into buying them.
I heard a rumor a few weeks back (Jan 19th) regarding ASICs on the network - supposedly there was a batch of 5000 miners manufactured for a private Chinese farm that went online just recently. It seems to be pretty feasible after comparing against some analytics done on the nonce ranges of historic blocks:
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
Quote
<@solar> i got some confirmation about asics too
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
So after a thorough analysis of the winning nonces for blocks 1760000-1765000 I can say this about ASICs that are on the network now:
320 cores (10 chips x 32 cores?)
each core processes nonces with 2^22 step - from 0 to ~1.34e9
Single core speed is 400 h/s - calculated from the area of spikes (which come with 2^22 step) on winning nonce graph
Overall ASIC device speed = 128 kh/s (400*320)
Around 4000-4500 ASICs online now
M5M400 they do mine on public pools: f2pool, viabtc, poolin - they all submit blocks with winning nonces strictly in ASIC nonce ranges
all 3 are Chinese pools ironically
so we can just count them in "unknown hashrate" part
which leaves only 230 MH/s known
and 641 MH/s = almost exactly 5000 * 128 kh/s solar
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
Another Hard Fork Coming for Monero [XMR]? Analysis says ASIC Dominates Monero Hashrate
https://coingape.com/asic-dominates-monero-hashrate/
Quote
the current network hashrate likely consists of 85.2% ASICs (5400 ASIC machines) and some die-hard GPU miners and botnets.
This is why hard forks purely for banning ASIC miners are dangerous in my opinion, they lower your network strength (making it vulnerable to 51% attacks) while ASIC manufacturers
will find ways to circumvent it. Best is to just allow ASIC miners and have them spread their hashrate evenly across pools (difficult to arrange, but not impossible).
Yes and no
I heard a rumor a few weeks back (Jan 19th) regarding ASICs on the network - supposedly there was a batch of 5000 miners manufactured for a private Chinese farm that went online just recently. It seems to be pretty feasible after comparing against some analytics done on the nonce ranges of historic blocks:
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
https://github.com/noncesense-research-lab/nonce_distribution/blob/master/nonce_distribution.ipynb
Conveniently enough, this analysis concludes the miners came online around Jan 9th. Some chit-chat from IRC matches up as well:
Quote
<@solar> i got some confirmation about asics too
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
So after a thorough analysis of the winning nonces for blocks 1760000-1765000 I can say this about ASICs that are on the network now:
320 cores (10 chips x 32 cores?)
each core processes nonces with 2^22 step - from 0 to ~1.34e9
Single core speed is 400 h/s - calculated from the area of spikes (which come with 2^22 step) on winning nonce graph
Overall ASIC device speed = 128 kh/s (400*320)
Around 4000-4500 ASICs online now
M5M400 they do mine on public pools: f2pool, viabtc, poolin - they all submit blocks with winning nonces strictly in ASIC nonce ranges
all 3 are Chinese pools ironically
so we can just count them in "unknown hashrate" part
which leaves only 230 MH/s known
and 641 MH/s = almost exactly 5000 * 128 kh/s solar
<@solar> there's at least 1 group with cnv2 asics, 65nm
<@solar> supposedly a batch of 5000
At the time of this post, network hashrate is 850 MH/s (640 MH/s being 75% unknown), putting us squarely in the danger zone for network-level attacks. This is also a major drain on public pools - with only 230MH/s of "legitimate" miners popular pools are operating at a significant loss, having only 60-70 MH/s on average (e.g. SupportXMR at 0.6% is just below $1300/mo, while their server expenses are approximately $5000/mo). With the next hard fork still a few months out this is a completely unsustainable scenario and will eventually lead to the closure and consolidation of the public pools, not to mention a mass exodus of "legitimate" miners.
Another Hard Fork Coming for Monero [XMR]? Analysis says ASIC Dominates Monero Hashrate
https://coingape.com/asic-dominates-monero-hashrate/
Quote
the current network hashrate likely consists of 85.2% ASICs (5400 ASIC machines) and some die-hard GPU miners and botnets.
This is why hard forks purely for banning ASIC miners are dangerous in my opinion, they lower your network strength (making it vulnerable to 51% attacks) while ASIC manufacturers
will find ways to circumvent it. Best is to just allow ASIC miners and have them spread their hashrate evenly across pools (difficult to arrange, but not impossible).
All miners are legitimate miners, what do you think they are buying if they really built this new tech?
And if 75% of the total hash rate is controlled by bad actors, then I'm pretty sure an emergency hard fork to brick those ASIC's is in order...? I mean the devs already did it once. I can't see how it can't be done again.
And how do we tell they're bad actors? According to bitcoin logic you can't tell who is using a mining pool, so shouldn't worry about it. Still trying to understand how anyone thinks, "China has some of the cheapest electricity on earth, China has some of the cheapest electronics on earth, mining pools located in China control much of the hash, but we can't assume it's Chinese miners." It's like some people don't know how economies of scale work.
Just saying... Even if 75% was controlled by bad actors, they still have no chance. The devs and the community would unanimously support another hard fork to brick those ASICs. They should just give up imo.
I know that's true for monero, but not true for most cryptos--that was the distinction I was trying to elucidate, but maybe I should be more on the nose and just say as much.
All miners are legitimate miners, what do you think they are buying if they really built this new tech?
And if 75% of the total hash rate is controlled by bad actors, then I'm pretty sure an emergency hard fork to brick those ASIC's is in order...? I mean the devs already did it once. I can't see how it can't be done again.
And how do we tell they're bad actors? According to bitcoin logic you can't tell who is using a mining pool, so shouldn't worry about it. Still trying to understand how anyone thinks, "China has some of the cheapest electricity on earth, China has some of the cheapest electronics on earth, mining pools located in China control much of the hash, but we can't assume it's Chinese miners." It's like some people don't know how economies of scale work.
Just saying... Even if 75% was controlled by bad actors, they still have no chance. The devs and the community would unanimously support another hard fork to brick those ASICs. They should just give up imo.
You don't see any negative impact over a single miner controlling 75% of the network? They could attack the chain at any time until the hard fork (2 months away) with ease.
blaablaablaaa
I'm guess the plan with bitcoin is to keep block size unchanged and allow fees to go through the roof, to subsidize miners. Meanwhile, users will have cheap and fast transactions on lightning network. Win/Win?
I'm sure someone has done some projections on how viable that economic model is. It would be interesting to see.
I'm sure someone has done some projections on how viable that economic model is. It would be interesting to see.
I have seen many arguments here on BCT as why this fee model does not work and none as why it will work. By the way lightning network is not a solution. Just read the Lightning Network paper https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf where they talk about 100 MB + blocks to make LN work. In any case I hate to say I told you so, but I sold all my Bitcoin for Monero over this issue with the bulk of the sales completed well over 3 years ago.
Edit: The reason I found out about Monero in the first place is because I was researching this issue in Bitcoin here on BCT in 2014.
I was reading an old thread you were in where Satoshi had commented that the code for bigger blocks would be easy and he gave a simple If then statement to show how easy.
This is the thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all It is of course the thread that started the blocksize debate in Bitcoin
Yup.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366
spreadshiet
Right!
Shit just got home from casino and furnace shutoff, freezing my ass off!
Quote from: ArticMine
In any case I hate to say I told you so, but I sold all my Bitcoin for Monero over this issue with the bulk of the sales completed well over 3 years ago.
I still have some as a hedge, though I was seriously considering dumping them but couldn't pull the trigger back then. I remember when saddam did a similar thing too. So what are your thoughts, will bitcoin get taken over by another coin (monero, bcash?, etc), or the thinking is monero will out preform bitcoin from here on out?
Bcash. Lol
Little bit of a pump, looking at it bitcoin too.
Reassuring to see we can still have positive action.
Reassuring to see we can still have positive action.
announcement of mimblewimble addon for litecoin has generated a pump ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
I don't see what it would add in functionality or privacy that would make sense.
thank you, I have read that fluffypony wants to put mimblewimble in TARI sidechain of XMR.
announcement of mimblewimble addon for litecoin has generated a pump ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
I don't see what it would add in functionality or privacy that would make sense.
announcement of mimblewimble addon for litecoin has generated a pump ?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.49645721
it will be rhe same for XMR ??
All miners are legitimate miners, what do you think they are buying if they really built this new tech?
And if 75% of the total hash rate is controlled by bad actors, then I'm pretty sure an emergency hard fork to brick those ASIC's is in order...? I mean the devs already did it once. I can't see how it can't be done again.
And how do we tell they're bad actors? According to bitcoin logic you can't tell who is using a mining pool, so shouldn't worry about it. Still trying to understand how anyone thinks, "China has some of the cheapest electricity on earth, China has some of the cheapest electronics on earth, mining pools located in China control much of the hash, but we can't assume it's Chinese miners." It's like some people don't know how economies of scale work.
All miners are legitimate miners, what do you think they are buying if they really built this new tech?
And if 75% of the total hash rate is controlled by bad actors, then I'm pretty sure an emergency hard fork to brick those ASIC's is in order...? I mean the devs already did it once. I can't see how it can't be done again.
and the second that is revealed all their coins would immediately drop to worthless
Doesn't make sense to me if the truth is that they spent a lot developing a specialist hardware in an incredible short time?
Doesn't make sense to me if the truth is that they spent a lot developing a specialist hardware in an incredible short time?
You don't see any negative impact over a single miner controlling 75% of the network? They could attack the chain at any time until the hard fork (2 months away) with ease.
I don't know, why you guys panic. Low prices + hash rate goes up = high prices in the near future
I also do not understand this reaction. Now we need to buy more cryptocurrency assets, especially Monero.
I don't know, why you guys panic. Low prices + hash rate goes up = high prices in the near future
XMR and other large coins have lost too much value. Now a new story can be written. One possibility is that bitcoin could go down to $ 2400. And now the rise will begin.
Jump to: