Industry Execs Claim Freshly Minted 'Virgin ... - Bitcoin News

AITA for telling my stepdaughter she's adopted even though her father expressly told me not to?

So, this is a throwaway as I don't want this to get back to my family as we are in good standing in our community (volunteering, philanthropy..).
Id apologize for the formatting but as a female developer (back end) I have constantly been asked to style html, as if I am some feeble minded web designer on a 5 digit salary. I believe my role is a functional one and the idea that I should make things look pretty just because I'm a woman is abhorrent. I'm also on mobile (with developer mode enabled, carrier unlocked) so am unable to "decorate" my words in a feminine socially acceptable manner.
My late husband rest his soul (LH, 48) passed this Thanksgiving. (He was a male developer, full stack).
He had a daughter from his first marriage (his wife died when their daughter was 8... She was adopted as his wife was by all accounts barren, and she was also a piece of work and very religious. She worked in retail or some such, not a very analytical mind from what I've been told.
They had planned on telling their child age was adopted at some point but when the wife died (she seemingly didn't even TRY to fight illness for the sake of her family) the brat daughter (BD) was so distraught, my late husband just never told her - he felt she would be heartbroken to lose the connection she felt to her "first mummy".
Well, we've been together since BD was 11. I've worked hard to build a strong relationship with her, even building her her personal gaming room with a custom pc, RGB, and her own custom printed pc casing decorated with pictures of ballerinas (ballet is her number one passion but we don't have space at home for her to practice as you need a full dance studio to practice, I thought this was a nice touch anyway.)
We have a good relationship. I take her to comicon every year and we have a good time. She's 17 now, I even enrolled her in a very prestigious pre- university course for future programming majors. She requested dance classes but the programming course is far higher value (thousands) whereas dance is 50 bucks or something and has no discernible ROI.
Anyway, this last Thanksgiving LH passed after a sudden illness. It came on so quickly... We thought he would pull through... On both our salaries we earn a combined 7 figure salary and have the best doctors.
Unfortunately despite their best debugging efforts, his runtime was ended prematurely. We were told he suffered from a chronic hereditary illness. (I blame my MIL) which apparently can't be detected until it is active in the body, which can happen suddenly and for no know reason at any age. It's extremely rare. But, it's got about a 50% chance to pass it to your children.
Well, BD began to obsess over this, thinking she would likely have the illness and could do nothing about it. I felt powerless to help - if only humans were more like computers!- my LH had stated very clearly that he didn't want to tell his daughter she was adopted. However, he died before we discovered he had this condition.
I discussed with my MIL ( who Loved the dead wife and never liked me, as she is obsessed with form over function!) And she began screaming and crying that if I tell BD she will run away and not want anything to do with us because she's that age and a bit of a handful and rebellious (as I mentioned, that dance phase).
I decided that it was the right thing to do as she was going around believing she had a very good chance of having a terrible condition that could cause her to get sick and die over a few weeks, out of the blue at any time. And there no way to test it until it's too late.
So I decided to build her a pc game that told her the truth via a series of puzzles she would unlock. I spent two weeks developing this and it's actually quite good if I say so. In the final cut scene, her dead parents rise from the graves and I join them and we all say "but you're still our daughter and we love you and will support you and always be here for you."
I presented it to her and she was immediately relieved but also had a period of lashing out, she dyed her hair pink, I found a Russian bitcoin miner on her pc (she's normally very careful with malware) and she was using non-branded chargers for her devices which is against a house rule.
I still think I did the right thing but my MIL keeps calling me and screaming that I tore her granddaughter from her bosom. I don't want to respond that she barely has a bosom (everyone in his side of the family has small breasts , another reason for BD to feel relieved she's adopted!)
Anyway, what do you think Reddit AITA?
submitted by ivankatrumpsarmpits to AmITheAngel [link] [comments]

Scammer Alert: @Benedictseamus "0 cost mining, 100% ROI, just give me all your details"

User: /useBenedictseamus
I got a message from this user saying:
Hello there
I had a quick look at their profile, they seemed new. Perhaps needing help or a question about something that I had posted so I clicked accept and replied with:
sup
https://imgur.com/8Q57Vf9
They then asked how I was, very polite as it were. I did not have time for long convo as I was busy so I just asked if I could help. This is when I knew the scam was about to start. They told me they were a I’m a stock broker and a bitcoin miner and they wanted to talk to me about it. Me, little old me. Well I was honoured. I replied truthfully. I know of it but I am no means an expert.
https://imgur.com/VNkDArr
They told me that there was no cost, but very good return of investment. "No cost at all , with this mining scheme you get 100% ROI and lots of bonuses". Well my penis was positively throbbing at this. 100% return, 0 cost. This was it, I finally made it.
Quick, sign me up what can I do....
It's simple, just create a new wallet and then the "mining hardware" will do the rest for me. I said I would create a wallet but they told me no, it has to be created on this specific website: blockchain.info
https://imgur.com/S60bBoh
All they needed was my wallet ID and my temporary password.
The reason why we ask you to create with a temporary password is because it’s an international connection , you not here with me and I’m not there with you, so we derived a means which we can be able to connect those who are not of closed distance. So when you get channeled to the miner you will then have to change your password to the permanent one after connection is done
https://imgur.com/EX37QD1
Now, all he needs is my details. Well, I was just texting my friend James, and James is a nice name. So tonight Matthew I will be: James... er.... Montgomery. And I googled nice places in England and got somewhere called Edale. That will do, sounds posh.
I also wanted them to know I was serious. I had 33BTC I would put into this. I wanted to get 100% returns on that. This was it. When lambo?
https://imgur.com/79j7Tyl
I then gave him my authenticator details and password:
https://imgur.com/d9NbZ3y
I did get a log in request to authorise in my inbox:
https://imgur.com/nqqr9Gv
There were some issues but I asked if he was expert (my confidence was waning):
https://imgur.com/mYwFi8s https://imgur.com/CNlSny2
After some tinkering around they got my account set up. I was then advised to change my password.
Wow, The really care about my security. I changed the password and then that was that. All I need to do deposit BTC into my newly secure account and then 100%.
Except its not. Two things probably happened here:
https://imgur.com/fzX5KSM
I decided to try my luck. Can I get them to give me some bitcoin? My aim here is 1 get something from them and 2 get their address so I can report it.
https://imgur.com/EBLtjoB
I clearly am no clever persuader and I clearly am not getting anything from them so I just thought I would leave them waiting with excitement whilst I write this blog post up:
https://imgur.com/tp3ec3E
I can't believe these scams still happen, do people still fall for this?

NEVER GIVE OUT ACCOUNT DETAILS OR SEEDS/WALLET IDS TO ANYONE

Full convo:
  1. https://imgur.com/HO84SR5
  2. https://imgur.com/ZeseI1C
  3. https://imgur.com/MhHNzwZ
  4. https://imgur.com/OiHka5P
  5. https://imgur.com/CP86ozb
  6. https://imgur.com/xc8EXe1
  7. https://imgur.com/IoNcPIQ
  8. https://imgur.com/8v8vgdY
  9. https://imgur.com/zP8Lzn6
  10. https://imgur.com/Bgm6hzh
  11. https://imgur.com/coJNSYA
  12. https://imgur.com/Pcr4kcU
  13. https://imgur.com/HoTLad5
submitted by pmayall to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Understanding Crypto Mining | And perhaps a way to mitigate its impact on the PC gaming ecosystem

EDIT: Per the moderation staff, I'm adding in to the header what I'm using to make it easier for prospective miners.
  1. Go to https://www.nicehash.com/
  2. Create a login
  3. Download their software and run it (this used to be "????")
  4. Profit
Once you reach 0.002 BTC (about 7-10 days on my GTX 1060 + i7-7700k), you can transfer your earnings to Coinbase for free, and cash out. CB does have fees for conversion to Fiat (cash) and your percentage goes down with higher amounts. So don't cash out just because you can. Cash out when you have enough to buy something.
Also a note on taxes. I'm going to keep this simple.
Hi folks. I just want to thank those of you in advance who trudge through this post. It's going to be long. I will try to have a TLDR at the end, so just scroll down for the bolded text if you want Cliff's Notes.
Disclaimer: I'm a miner, sort of. I casually mine when I sleep/work, using my existing PC. It doesn't make much. I don't buy hardware for mining. But, I still wanted to post this disclaimer in the interest of fairness.
As we all know, cryptocurrency mining has had a devastating impact on the PC gaming ecosystem. The demand for GPUs for mining has lead to scarce availability and sky high prices for relevant hardware. But even hardware that is less desirable for mining relative to their peers (GTX 1050ti, 1080) has been impacted. Why? Because when gamers can't get the 1060 or 1070 that they desire, they gravitate en masse towards something that their finances will allow them to settle for.
But for all that we know about mining, there's still a LOT of myth and misinformation out there. And I blame this on the bigger miners themselves. They have a few tactics they're using to discourage competition. Now, why would they do this? Simply put, the more coins are mined, the harder the algorithms get. That means the same hardware mines a lower rate of cryptocurrency over time. If the mining rates were to get too low before new hardware (Volta/Navi) could be released, it would cause a massive depression in the cryptocurrency market. Most hardware would become unprofitable, and used GPUs would flood the market. Miners want to retain profitability on current hardware until the next generation hardware is out.
So, what tactics are they engaging in? Silence and manipulation. On the former, the bigger miners don't usually participate and contribute to the community (there are exceptions, and they are greatly appreciated). They're sponges, taking whatever the community provides without returning much to the community. On the latter, they post here, in this very sub occasionally. And they continue to push certain types of myth/misinformation to discourage other users from mining.
And why, of all people, would you discourage gamers from mining? It's because of the competition point mentioned above. If a massive number of gamers entered the cryptocurrency mining market, it could trigger a mining apocalypse. There's an estimated 3-4 million current-gen GPUs being used in 24/7 mining operations by dedicated miners. Now, how many current-gen GPUs are used by gamers? I'd bet at least an equal amount. But what about Maxwell and Kepler? Or all those GCN-based GPUs up through Fiji? Bottom line is that when you factor in all available profitable GPUs, gamers drastically outnumber dedicated miners (yes, Kepler and GCN 1.0 are still profitable, barely). And if a large number of those users started casually mining as I am, the following would occur:
  • difficulty would increase, lower output (profitability) for everyone involved
  • Coin creation would initially accelerate, and with no massive change to the market cap, that means per-coin value drops
  • when you factor in slower coin generation for individual miners, coupled with lower coin value, you get...
  • ROI length increase on GPUs, depressing their values, which would lead to lower prices and higher availability
Oh dear, someone just spilled the beans...
So naturally, misinformation needs to be spread. If dedicated miners can keep the uninformed, well, uninformed, they're less likely to join in. And I've seen variations of the following misinformation spread. Here's the common tropes, and my rebuttal.
Mining on your GPU will cause it to die prematurely.
I really wish we had a Blackblaze-equivalent for GPUs used in data centers. NOTHING punishes a GPU like full-time use in a data center. Not mining, not gaming, and not prosumer usage. And these companies pay thousands per GPU. Clearly, they're getting solid ROI for their use.
But let's talk about mining specifically. For my GTX 1060, I limit power to 80% (96W). Fan speed is at a constant 40% (that's in the same ballpark as your blower-style GPU in desktop usage). Temperature is a constant 75°C. That's gentle. Gaming hurts it more (start/stop on the fan, varying temps, quick rise at the start and fall at the end, varying loads, etc.).
And if GPUs did prematurely die from mining? One miner insisted that I'd never see an ROI on my 1060 (which cost me $240) because it would die before I could earn that amount. Yea, GPUs routinely die before hitting their ROI. That's why miners are buying $200 GPUs today for $500, or $400 GPUs today for $900. Because they don't generate enough to cover their MSRP, let alone their current gouged prices. /s
Common sense would dictate that miners are profitable, or they wouldn't mine. Therefore, GPUs are not dying prematurely. So, don't fall for this one. And yes, I've seen those photos of the 20-card Sapphire RMA. Mining data centers have THOUSANDS of cards. Just do an image search for a GPU mining farm. This is well within typical acceptable defect rates.
Power costs are too high for mining to be profitable.
Warning! Danger Will Robinson! Math ahead!
Where I live, electricity ranges from 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kw/hr), to 10.1 cents per kw/hr. Let's round to 10 cents. Power measured at the wall from my surge protector, while mining, shows just under 200W. (That's includes my tower, monitor, speakers, a dedicated NAS, a router, and PSU inefficiency). That also includes mining on both CPU and GPU.
At 200W per hour, that's 5 hours to hit 1kw/hr. That's 5kw/hr per 25 hours, so let's call it 5kw/hr per day. That is $0.50 per day total from that outlet (and most of this stuff would be running anyway). That's not even "over my existing costs," that's just out the door.
Bottom line is that electricity is cheap in many areas. The USA national average is currently ~12 cents per kw/hr (RIP Hawaii, at 33 cents). For most of the developed world, power costs are not prohibitive. Don't fall for this. If unsure, check your rates on your bill, and ask someone who can do math if you can't.
Casually mining isn't profitable
There's a big difference between "profit" and "getting rich." I have no expectations of the latter happening from what I'm doing. But "profit" is very much real. It's not power costs that derail profitability. It's all of the hidden fees. Many mining programs take a cut of your output. And then a cut to transfer to a wallet. And then there's a fee to transfer to an exchange. Oh, did you want to then convert to cash? We can...for a fee!
The trick is in finding outlets that allow you to minimize fees. I give up 2% of my output, transfer to my wallet for free, can transfer to an exchange for free, and don't plan to cash out every time I meet the minimum threshold (higher fees!). I instead plan to cash out at extended set intervals to minimize those fees.
NOTE: I am deliberately not listing the provider(s) that I use, because I don't want to be accused of being associated with them and/or driving business to them. I want this post to be about the big picture. But I will answer questions in the comments, provided the moderation staff here has no objections.
Bottom line is that with a mid-range GPU like mine, and without the benefit of CPU mining (it's just not worth it without a modern Core i7, or Ryzen 5/7), my GPU alone could make me ~$60-$75/mo in profit at current rates. Think of how many months/years you go between upgrades. Now, do the math. Needless to say, I'm now regretting not going bigger up front :)
It's too complicated for a casual miner, so don't bother
The old "go big or go home" saying, and it sort of piggy backs off the last one. And there is some truth in this. If you're going to be a big-time miner, you need mining programs (often dedicated to each algorithm and/or currency), multiple wallets, access to multiple exchanges, etc. It's daunting.
But for the casual, you don't need that. There are multiple providers who offer you a one-stop-shop. I have one login right now. That login gives me my mining software, which switches between multiple algorithms/coins, gives me a wallet, and lets me transfer to an outside wallet/exchange. My second login will be the exchange (something that lets me convert my currency to local cash) when my balance justifies it. Given the recent Robin Hood announcement, I'm biding my time to see what happens. This space is getting competitive (lower fees).
Bottom line, it's easier now than it ever was before. As I told someone else, "Once I finally started, I wanted to kick my own ass for waiting so long."
New GPUs are expensive, but if you just wait, there will be a buttload of cheap, used GPUs for you!
Miners learned from the last crash. There were two types of miners in that crash: those who sold their GPUs at a loss, and those who kept mining and made out like bandits on the upswing. Turns out, cryptocurrency really does mimic the stock market (for now).
We're going to look at Bitcoin (BTC) to explain this. No, miners don't mine BTC. But, BTC is commonly what most coins are exchanged for (it makes up roughly one third of the entire cryptocurrency market). And it's the easiest currency to convert to cash. So, when BTC rises or falls in price, the rest of the market goes with it. That includes all of the coins that GPU miners are actually mining.
In January 2017, when the current mining push started, BTC was worth roughly $900 per coin. It's now worth roughly (as of this post) $12,000 per coin, down from a December high of over $20,000 per coin. So yea, the market "crashed." It's also more than 12x the value it was a year ago, when miners dove in. You think they're going to bail at 12x the value? Son, I've got news for you. This market needs to truly crash and burn for them to bail (and that's where you come in!).
So, there's not going to be a flood of used GPUs from a sudden market crash. Again, they've learned from that mistake. Used GPUs will enter the market when they are no longer profitable for mining, and not before. Dedicated miners have lots of room for expansion. When Volta comes out, they're not selling their Pascal GPUs. They're building new Volta mining rigs alongside the Pascal ones, making money off each of them.
Conclusion/TLDR:
  • Mining is subject to diminishing returns. It gets harder over time on the same hardware.
  • PC gamers joining the market en masse could trigger an apocalypse in terms of difficulty
  • Due to this, it benefits pro miners to spread misinformation to discourage gamers from entering the mining game
  • Casually mining on your existing system is safe, easy, could help you pay for your next upgrade(s), and could also hurt the mining market in general (better availability/pricing on GPUs)
  • No, there's no flood of used Pascal/Polaris/Vega GPUs around the corner, as those are HIGHLY profitable even in a depressed market
Second Conclusion - Why do I (jaykresge) personally care?
Simply put, I'm disgusted by this. I was excited about flipping a few friends from consoles to PC gaming. I'm now seeing a reverse trend. One friend is gaming on an RX 560 waiting for prices to hit sanity. He's running out of patience. Others have bailed.
I view our dormant GPUs as the best weapon against cryptocurrency mining. Destroy it from the inside. It's win-win for most of us. Either we earn enough for more upgrades, or we depress pricing. Something's got to give.
In other words, y'all f*ckers better start mining, because I want Volta to be reasonably priced when it launches so I can get an EVGA x80 Hybrid to go with a G-Sync monitor. And if this doesn't happen, I'm going to be cranky!
Seriously though, thanks for reading. Bear with me as I go over this a few more times for typing/grammar. And I look forward to your comments.
submitted by jaykresge to hardware [link] [comments]

Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto

A couple of years ago in the early months of the 2017, I published a piece called Abundance Via Cryptocurrencies (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/69d12a/abundance\_via\_cryptocurrencies/) in which I kind of foresaw the crypto boom that had bitcoin go from $1k to $21k and the alt-coin economy swell up to have more than 60% of the bitcoin market capitalisation. At the time, I spoke of coming out from “the Pit” of conspiracy research and that I was a bit suss on bitcoin’s inception story. At the time I really didn’t see the scaling solution being put forward as being satisfactory and the progress on bitcoin seemed stifled by the politics of the social consensus on an open source protocol so I was looking into alt coins that I thought could perhaps improve upon the shortcomings of bitcoin. In the thread I made someone recommended to have a look at 4chan’s business and finance board. I did end up taking a look at it just as the bull market started to really surge. I found myself in a sea of anonymous posters who threw out all kinds of info and memes about the hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of different shitcoins and why they’re all going to have lambos on the moon. I got right in to it, I loved the idea of filtering through all the shitposts and finding the nuggest of truth amongst it all and was deeply immersed in it all as the price of bitcoin surged 20x and alt coins surged 5-10 times against bitcoin themselves. This meant there were many people who chucked in a few grand and bought a stash of alt coins that they thought were gonna be the next big thing and some people ended up with “portfolios” 100-1000x times their initial investment.
To explain what it’s like to be on an anonymous business and finance board populated with incel neets, nazis, capitalist shit posters, autistic geniuses and whoever the hell else was using the board for shilling their coins during a 100x run up is impossible. It’s hilarious, dark, absurd, exciting and ultimately addictive as fuck. You have this app called blockfolio that you check every couple of minutes to see the little green percentages and the neat graphs of your value in dollars or bitcoin over day, week, month or year. Despite my years in the pit researching conspiracy, and my being suss on bitcoin in general I wasn’t anywhere near as distrustful as I should have been of an anonymous business and finance board and although I do genuinely think there are good people out there who are sharing information with one another in good faith and feel very grateful to the anons that have taken their time to write up quality content to educate people they don’t know, I wasn’t really prepared for the level of organisation and sophistication of the efforts groups would go to to deceive in this space.
Over the course of my time in there I watched my portfolio grow to ridiculous numbers relative to what I put in but I could never really bring myself to sell at the top of a pump as I always felt I had done my research on a coin and wanted to hold it for a long time so why would I sell? After some time though I would read about something new or I would find out of dodgy relationships of a coin I had and would want to exit my position and then I would rebalance my portfolio in to a coin I thought was either technologically superior or didn’t have the nefarious connections to people I had come across doing conspiracy research. Because I had been right in to the conspiracy and the decentralisation tropes I guess I always carried a bit of an antiauthoritarian/anarchist bias and despite participating in a ridiculously capitalistic market, was kind of against capitalism and looking to a blockchain protocol to support something along the lines of an open source anarchosyndicalist cryptocommune. I told myself I was investing in the tech and believed in the collective endeavour of the open source project and ultimately had faith some mysterious “they” would develop a protocol that would emancipate us from this debt slavery complex.
As I became more and more aware of how to spot artificial discussion on the chans, I began to seek out further some of the radical projects like vtorrent and skycoin and I guess became a bit carried away from being amidst such ridiculous overt shilling as on the boards so that if you look in my post history you can even see me promoting some of these coins to communities I thought might be sympathetic to their use case. I didn’t see it at the time because I always thought I was holding the coins with the best tech and wanted to ride them up as an investor who believed in them, but this kind of promotion is ultimately just part of a mentality that’s pervasive to the cryptocurrency “community” that insists because it is a decentralised project you have to in a way volunteer to inform people about the coin since the more decentralised ones without premines or DAO structures don’t have marketing budgets, or don’t have marketing teams. In the guise of cultivating a community, groups form together on social media platforms like slack, discord, telegram, twitter and ‘vote’ for different proposals, donate funds to various boards/foundations that are set up to give a “roadmap” for the coins path to greatness and organise marketing efforts on places like reddit, the chans, twitter. That’s for the more grass roots ones at least, there are many that were started as a fork of another coin, or a ICO, airdrop or all these different ways of disseminating a new cryptocurrency or raising funding for promising to develop one. Imagine the operations that can be run by a team that raised millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars on their ICOs, especially if they are working in conjunction with a new niche of cryptocurrency media that’s all nepotistic and incestuous.
About a year and a half ago I published another piece called “Bitcoin is about to be dethroned” (https://www.reddit.com/C\_S\_T/comments/7ewmuu/bitcoin\_is\_about\_to\_be\_dethroned/) where I felt I had come to realise the scaling debate had been corrupted by a company called Blockstream and they had been paying for social media operations in a fashion not to dissimilar to correct the record or such to control the narrative around the scaling debate and then through deceit and manipulation curated an apparent consensus around their narrative and hijacked the bitcoin name and ticker (BTC). I read the post again just before posting this and decided to refer to it to to add some kind of continuity to my story and hopefully save me writing so much out. Looking back on something you wrote is always a bit cringey especially because I can see that although I had made it a premise post, I was acting pretty confident that I was right and my tongue was acidic because of so much combating of shills on /biz/ but despite the fact I was wrong about the timing I stand by much of what I wrote then and want to expand upon it a bit more now.
The fork of the bitcoin protocol in to bitcoin core (BTC) and bitcoin cash (BCH) is the biggest value fork of the many that have occurred. There were a few others that forked off from the core chain that haven’t had any kind of attention put on them, positive or negative and I guess just keep chugging away as their own implementation. The bitcoin cash chain was supposed to be the camp that backed on chain scaling in the debate, but it turned out not everyone was entirely on board with that and some players/hashpower felt it was better to do a layer two type solution themselves although with bigger blocks servicing the second layer. Throughout what was now emerging as a debate within the BCH camp, Craig Wright and Calvin Ayre of Coin Geek said they were going to support massive on chain scaling, do a node implementation that would aim to restore bitcoin back to the 0.1.0 release which had all kinds of functionality included in it that had later been stripped by Core developers over the years and plan to bankrupt the people from Core who changed their mind on agreeing with on-chain scaling. This lead to a fork off the BCH chain in to bitcoin satoshis vision (BSV) and bitcoin cash ABC.

https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/cbb50c322a2a89f3c627e1680a3f40d4ad3cee5a3fb153e5d6d001bdf85de404

The premise for this post is that Craig S Wright was Satoshi Nakamoto. It’s an interesting premise because depending upon your frame of reference the premise may either be a fact or to some too outrageous to even believe as a premise. Yesterday it was announced via CoinGeek that Craig Steven Wright has been granted the copyright claim for both the bitcoin white-paper under the pen name Satoshi Nakamoto and the original 0.1.0 bitcoin software (both of which were marked (c) copyright of satoshi nakamoto. The reactions to the news can kind of be classified in to four different reactions. Those who heard it and rejected it, those who heard it but remained undecided, those who heard it and accepted it, and those who already believed he was. Apparently to many the price was unexpected and such a revelation wasn’t exactly priced in to the market with the price immediately pumping nearly 100% upon the news breaking. However, to some others it was a vindication of something they already believed. This is an interesting phenomena to observe. For many years now I have always occupied a somewhat positively contrarian position to the default narrative put forward to things so it’s not entirely surprising that I find myself in a camp that holds the minority opinion. As you can see in the bitcoin dethroned piece I called Craig fake satoshi, but over the last year and bit I investigated the story around Craig and came to my conclusion that I believed him to be at least a major part of a team of people who worked on the protocol I have to admit that through reading his articles, I have kind of been brought full circle to where my contrarian opinion has me becoming somewhat of an advocate for “the system’.
https://coingeek.com/bitcoin-creator-craig-s-wright-satoshi-nakamoto-granted-us-copyright-registrations-for-bitcoin-white-paper-and-code/

When the news dropped, many took to social media to see what everyone was saying about it. On /biz/ a barrage of threads popped up discussing it with many celebrating and many rejecting the significance of such a copyright claim being granted. Immediately in nearly every thread there was a posting of an image of a person from twitter claiming that registering for copyright is an easy process that’s granted automatically unless challenged and so it doesn’t mean anything. This was enough for many to convince them of the insignificance of the revelation because of the comment from a person who claimed to have authority on twitter. Others chimed in to add that in fact there was a review of the copyright registration especially in high profile instances and these reviewers were satisfied with the evidence provided by Craig for the claim. At the moment Craig is being sued by Ira Kleiman for an amount of bitcoin that he believes he is entitled to because of Craig and Ira’s brother Dave working together on bitcoin. He is also engaged in suing a number of people from the cryptocurrency community for libel and defamation after they continued to use their social media/influencer positions to call him a fraud and a liar. He also has a number of patents lodged through his company nChain that are related to blockchain technologies. This has many people up in arms because in their mind Satoshi was part of a cypherpunk movement, wanted anonymity, endorsed what they believed to be an anti state and open source technologies and would use cryptography rather than court to prove his identity and would have no interest in patents.
https://bitstagram.bitdb.network/m/raw/1fce34a7004759f8db16b2ae9678e9c6db434ff2e399f59b5a537f72eff2c1a1
https://imgur.com/a/aANAsL3)

If you listen to Craig with an open mind, what cannot be denied is the man is bloody smart. Whether he is honest or not is up to you to decide, but personally I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then cut them off if i find them to be dishonest. What I haven’t really been able to do with my investigation of craig is cut him off. There have been many moments where I disagree with what he has had to say but I don’t think people having an opinion about something that I believe to be incorrect is the same as being a dishonest person. It’s very important to distinguish the two and if you are unable to do so there is a very real risk of you projecting expectations or ideals upon someone based off your ideas of who they are. Many times if someone is telling the truth but you don’t understand it, instead of acknowledging you don’t understand it, you label them as being stupid or dishonest. I think that has happened to an extreme extent with Craig. Let’s take for example the moment when someone in the slack channel asked Craig if he had had his IQ tested and what it was. Craig replied with 179. The vast majority of people on the internet have heard someone quote their IQ before in an argument or the IQ of others and to hear someone say such a score that is actually 6 standard deviations away from the mean score (so probably something like 1/100 000) immediately makes them reject it on the grounds of probability. Craig admits that he’s not the best with people and having worked with/taught many high functioning people (sometimes on the spectrum perhaps) on complex anatomical and physiological systems I have seen some that also share the same difficulties in relating to people and reconciling their genius and understandings with more average intelligences. Before rejecting his claim outright because we don’t understand much of what he says, it would be prudent to first check is there any evidence that may lend support to his claim of a one in a million intelligence quotient.

Craig has mentioned on a number of occasions that he holds a number of different degrees and certifications in relation to law, cryptography, statistics, mathematics, economics, theology, computer science, information technology/security. I guess that does sound like something someone with an extremely high intelligence could achieve. Now I haven’t validated all of them but from a simple check on Charles Sturt’s alumni portal using his birthday of 23rd of October 1970 we can see that he does in fact have 3 Masters and a PhD from Charles Sturt. Other pictures I have seen from his office at nChain have degrees in frames on the wall and a developer published a video titled Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 degrees where he went and validated at least 8 of them I believe. He is recently publishing his Doctorate of Theology through an on-chain social media page that you have to pay a little bit for access to sections of his thesis. It’s titled the gnarled roots of creation. He has also mentioned on a number of occasions his vast industry experience as both a security contractor and business owner. An archive from his LinkedIn can be seen below as well.

LinkedIn - https://archive.is/Q66Gl
https://youtu.be/nXdkczX5mR0 - Craig Wright is a Genius with 17 Degrees
https://www.yours.org/content/gnarled-roots-of-a-creation-mythos-45e69558fae0 - Gnarled Roots of Creation.
In fact here is an on chain collection of articles and videos relating to Craig called the library of craig - https://www.bitpaste.app/tx/94b361b205196560d1bd09e4e3b3ec7ad6bea478af204cabfe243efd8fc944dd


So there is a guy with 17 degrees, a self professed one in a hundred thousand IQ, who’s worked for Australian Federal Police, ASIO, NSA, NASA, ASX. He’s been in Royal Australian Air Force, operated a number of businesses in Australia, published half a dozen academic papers on networks, cryptography, security, taught machine learning and digital forensics at a number of universities and then another few hundred short articles on medium about his work in these various domains, has filed allegedly 700 patents on blockchain related technology that he is going to release on bitcoin sv, copyrighted the name so that he may prevent other competing protocols from using the brand name, that is telling you he is the guy that invented the technology that he has a whole host of other circumstantial evidence to support that, but people won’t believe that because they saw something that a talking head on twitter posted or that a Core Developer said, or a random document that appears online with a C S Wright signature on it that lists access to an address that is actually related to Roger Ver, that’s enough to write him off as a scam. Even then when he publishes a photo of the paper copy which appears to supersede the scanned one, people still don’t readjust their positions on the matter and resort back to “all he has to do is move the coins or sign a tx”.

https://imgur.com/urJbe10

Yes Craig was on the Cypherpunk mailing list back in the day, but that doesn’t mean that he was or is an anarchist. Or that he shares the same ideas that Code Is Law that many from the crypto community like to espouse. I myself have definitely been someone to parrot the phrase myself before reading lots of Craig’s articles and trying to understand where he is coming from. What I have come to learn from listening and reading the man, is that although I might be fed up with the systems we have in place, they still exist to perform important functions within society and because of that the tools we develop to serve us have to exist within that preexisting legal and social framework in order for them to have any chance at achieving global success in replacing fiat money with the first mathematically provably scarce commodity. He says he designed bitcoin to be an immutable data ledger where everyone is forced to be honest, and economically disincentivised to perform attacks within the network because of the logs kept in a Write Once Read Many (WORM) ledger with hierarchical cryptographic keys. In doing so you eliminate 99% of cyber crime, create transparent DAO type organisations that can be audited and fully compliant with legislature that’s developed by policy that comes from direct democratic voting software. Everyone who wants anonymous coins wants to have them so they can do dishonest things, illegal things, buy drugs, launder money, avoid taxes.

Now this triggers me a fair bit as someone who has bought drugs online, who probably hasn’t paid enough tax, who has done illegal things contemplating what it means to have that kind of an evidence ledger, and contemplate a reality where there are anonymous cryptocurrencies, where massive corporations continue to be able to avoid taxes, or where methamphetamine can be sold by the tonne, or where people can be bought and sold. This is the reality of creating technologies that can enable and empower criminals. I know some criminals and regard them as very good friends, but I know there are some criminals that I do not wish to know at all. I know there are people that do horrific things in the world and I know that something that makes it easier for them is having access to funds or the ability to move money around without being detected. I know arms, drugs and people are some of the biggest markets in the world, I know there is more than $50 trillion dollars siphoned in to off shore tax havens from the value generated as the product of human creativity in the economy and how much human charity is squandered through the NGO apparatus. I could go on and on about the crappy things happening in the world but I can also imagine them getting a lot worse with an anonymous cryptocurrency. Not to say that I don’t think there shouldn’t be an anonymous cryptocurrency. If someone makes one that works, they make one that works. Maybe they get to exist for a little while as a honeypot or if they can operate outside the law successfully longer, but bitcoin itself shouldn’t be one. There should be something a level playing field for honest people to interact with sound money. And if they operate within the law, then they will have more than adequate privacy, just they will leave immutable evidence for every transaction that can be used as evidence to build a case against you committing a crime.

His claim is that all the people that are protesting the loudest about him being Satoshi are all the people that are engaged in dishonest business or that have a vested interest in there not being one singular global ledger but rather a whole myriad of alternative currencies that can be pumped and dumped against one another, have all kinds of financial instruments applied to them like futures and then have these exchanges and custodial services not doing any Know Your Customer (KYC) or Anti Money Laundering (AML) processes. Bitcoin SV was delisted by a number of exchanges recently after Craig launched legal action at some twitter crypto influencetalking heads who had continued to call him a fraud and then didn’t back down when the CEO of one of the biggest crypto exchanges told him to drop the case or he would delist his coin. The trolls of twitter all chimed in in support of those who have now been served with papers for defamation and libel and Craig even put out a bitcoin reward for a DOX on one of the people who had been particularly abusive to him on twitter. A big european exchange then conducted a twitter poll to determine whether or not BSV should be delisted as either (yes, it’s toxic or no) and when a few hundred votes were in favour of delisting it (which can be bought for a couple of bucks/100 votes). Shortly after Craig was delisted, news began to break of a US dollar stable coin called USDT potentially not being fully solvent for it’s apparent 1:1 backing of the token to dollars in the bank. Binance suffered an alleged exchange hack with 7000 BTC “stolen” and the site suspending withdrawals and deposits for a week. Binance holds 800m USDT for their US dollar markets and immediately once the deposits and withdrawals were suspended there was a massive pump for BTC in the USDT markets as people sought to exit their potentially not 1:1 backed token for bitcoin. The CEO of this exchange has the business registered out of Malta, no physical premises, the CEO stays hotel room to hotel room around the world, has all kind of trading competitions and the binance launchpad, uses an unregistered security to collect fees ($450m during the bear market) from the trading of the hundreds of coins that it lists on its exchange and has no regard for AML and KYC laws. Craig said he himself was able to create 100 gmail accounts in a day and create binance accounts with each of those gmail accounts and from the same wallet, deposit and withdraw 1 bitcoin into each of those in one day ($8000 x 100) without facing any restrictions or triggering any alerts or such.
This post could ramble on for ever and ever exposing the complexities of the rabbit hole but I wanted to offer some perspective on what’s been happening in the space. What is being built on the bitcoin SV blockchain is something that I can only partially comprehend but even from my limited understanding of what it is to become, I can see that the entirety of the crypto community is extremely threatened as it renders all the various alt coins and alt coin exchanges obsolete. It makes criminals play by the rules, it removes any power from the developer groups and turns the blockchain and the miners in to economies of scale where the blockchain acts as a serverless database, the miners provide computational resources/storage/RAM and you interact with a virtual machine through a monitor and keyboard plugged in to an ethernet port. It will be like something that takes us from a type 0 to a type 1 civilisation. There are many that like to keep us in the quagmire of corruption and criminality as it lines their pockets. Much much more can be read about the Cartel in crypto in the archive below. Is it possible this cartel has the resources to mount such a successful psychological operation on the cryptocurrency community that they manage to convince everyone that Craig is the bad guy, when he’s the only one calling for regulation, the application of the law, the storage of immutable records onchain to comply with banking secrecy laws, for Global Sound Money?

https://archive.fo/lk1lH#selection-3671.46-3671.55

Please note, where possible, images were uploaded onto the bitcoin sv blockchain through bitstagram paying about 10c a pop. If I wished I could then use an application etch and archive this post to the chain to be immutably stored. If this publishing forum was on chain too it would mean that when I do the archive the images that are in the bitstragram links (but stored in the bitcoin blockchain/database already) could be referenced in the archive by their txid so that they don’t have to be stored again and thus bringing the cost of the archive down to only the html and css.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Understanding Crypto Mining | And perhaps a way to mitigate its impact on the PC gaming ecosystem

This is a crosspost from /hardware, but I will be editing this independently based on community feedback and guidelines. Prior to posting here, I reached out to your local mod staff to ensure that I wasn't stepping on any toes, given the nature of its content. I hope you find this useful.
Hi folks. I just want to thank those of you in advance who trudge through this post. It's going to be long. I will try to have a TLDR at the end, so just scroll down for the bolded text if you want Cliff's Notes.
Disclaimer: I'm a miner, sort of. I casually mine when I sleep/work, using my existing PC. It doesn't make much. I don't buy hardware for mining. But, I still wanted to post this disclaimer in the interest of fairness.
As we all know, cryptocurrency mining has had a devastating impact on the PC gaming ecosystem. The demand for GPUs for mining has lead to scarce availability and sky high prices for relevant hardware. But even hardware that is less desirable for mining relative to their peers (GTX 1050ti, 1080) has been impacted. Why? Because when gamers can't get the 1060 or 1070 that they desire, they gravitate en masse towards something that their finances will allow them to settle for.
But for all that we know about mining, there's still a LOT of myth and misinformation out there. And I blame this on the bigger miners themselves. They have a few tactics they're using to discourage competition. Now, why would they do this? Simply put, the more coins are mined, the harder the algorithms get. That means the same hardware mines a lower rate of cryptocurrency over time. If the mining rates were to get too low before new hardware (Volta/Navi) could be released, it would cause a massive depression in the cryptocurrency market. Most hardware would become unprofitable, and used GPUs would flood the market. Miners want to retain profitability on current hardware until the next generation hardware is out.
So, what tactics are they engaging in? Silence and manipulation. On the former, the bigger miners don't usually participate and contribute to the community (there are exceptions, and they are greatly appreciated). They're sponges, taking whatever the community provides without returning much to the community. On the latter, they post here, in this very sub occasionally. And they continue to push certain types of myth/misinformation to discourage other users from mining.
And why, of all people, would you discourage gamers from mining? It's because of the competition point mentioned above. If a massive number of gamers entered the cryptocurrency mining market, it could trigger a mining apocalypse. There's an estimated 3-4 million current-gen GPUs being used in 24/7 mining operations by dedicated miners. Now, how many current-gen GPUs are used by gamers? I'd bet at least an equal amount. But what about Maxwell and Kepler? Or all those GCN-based GPUs up through Fiji? Bottom line is that when you factor in all available profitable GPUs, gamers drastically outnumber dedicated miners (yes, Kepler and GCN 1.0 are still profitable, barely). And if a large number of those users started casually mining as I am, the following would occur:
  • difficulty would increase, lower output (profitability) for everyone involved
  • Coin creation would initially accelerate, and with no massive change to the market cap, that means per-coin value drops
  • when you factor in slower coin generation for individual miners, coupled with lower coin value, you get...
  • ROI length increase on GPUs, depressing their values, which would lead to lower prices and higher availability
Oh dear, someone just spilled the beans...
So naturally, misinformation needs to be spread. If dedicated miners can keep the uninformed, well, uninformed, they're less likely to join in. And I've seen variations of the following misinformation spread. Here's the common tropes, and my rebuttal.
Mining on your GPU will cause it to die prematurely.
I really wish we had a Blackblaze-equivalent for GPUs used in data centers. NOTHING punishes a GPU like full-time use in a data center. Not mining, not gaming, and not prosumer usage. And these companies pay thousands per GPU. Clearly, they're getting solid ROI for their use.
But let's talk about mining specifically. For my GTX 1060, I limit power to 80% (96W). Fan speed is at a constant 40% (that's in the same ballpark as your blower-style GPU in desktop usage). Temperature is a constant 75°C. That's gentle. Gaming hurts it more (start/stop on the fan, varying temps, quick rise at the start and fall at the end, varying loads, etc.).
And if GPUs did prematurely die from mining? One miner insisted that I'd never see an ROI on my 1060 (which cost me $240) because it would die before I could earn that amount. Yea, GPUs routinely die before hitting their ROI. That's why miners are buying $200 GPUs today for $500, or $400 GPUs today for $900. Because they don't generate enough to cover their MSRP, let alone their current gouged prices. /s
Common sense would dictate that miners are profitable, or they wouldn't mine. Therefore, GPUs are not dying prematurely. So, don't fall for this one. And yes, I've seen those photos of the 20-card Sapphire RMA. Mining data centers have THOUSANDS of cards. Just do an image search for a GPU mining farm. This is well within typical acceptable defect rates.
Power costs are too high for mining to be profitable.
Warning! Danger Will Robinson! Math ahead!
Where I live, electricity ranges from 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour (kw/hr), to 10.1 cents per kw/hr. Let's round to 10 cents. Power measured at the wall from my surge protector, while mining, shows just under 200W. (That's includes my tower, monitor, speakers, a dedicated NAS, a router, and PSU inefficiency). That also includes mining on both CPU and GPU.
At 200W per hour, that's 5 hours to hit 1kw/hr. That's 5kw/hr per 25 hours, so let's call it 5kw/hr per day. That is $0.50 per day total from that outlet (and most of this stuff would be running anyway). That's not even "over my existing costs," that's just out the door.
Bottom line is that electricity is cheap in many areas. The USA national average is currently ~12 cents per kw/hr (RIP Hawaii, at 33 cents). For most of the developed world, power costs are not prohibitive. Don't fall for this. If unsure, check your rates on your bill, and ask someone who can do math if you can't.
Casually mining isn't profitable
There's a big difference between "profit" and "getting rich." I have no expectations of the latter happening from what I'm doing. But "profit" is very much real. It's not power costs that derail profitability. It's all of the hidden fees. Many mining programs take a cut of your output. And then a cut to transfer to a wallet. And then there's a fee to transfer to an exchange. Oh, did you want to then convert to cash? We can...for a fee!
The trick is in finding outlets that allow you to minimize fees. I give up 2% of my output, transfer to my wallet for free, can transfer to an exchange for free, and don't plan to cash out every time I meet the minimum threshold (higher fees!). I instead plan to cash out at extended set intervals to minimize those fees.
NOTE: I am deliberately not listing the provider(s) that I use, because I don't want to be accused of being associated with them and/or driving business to them. I want this post to be about the big picture. But I will answer questions in the comments, provided the moderation staff here has no objections.
Bottom line is that with a mid-range GPU like mine, and without the benefit of CPU mining (it's just not worth it without a modern Core i7, or Ryzen 5/7), my GPU alone could make me ~$60-$75/mo in profit at current rates. Think of how many months/years you go between upgrades. Now, do the math. Needless to say, I'm now regretting not going bigger up front :)
It's too complicated for a casual miner, so don't bother
The old "go big or go home" saying, and it sort of piggy backs off the last one. And there is some truth in this. If you're going to be a big-time miner, you need mining programs (often dedicated to each algorithm and/or currency), multiple wallets, access to multiple exchanges, etc. It's daunting.
But for the casual, you don't need that. There are multiple providers who offer you a one-stop-shop. I have one login right now. That login gives me my mining software, which switches between multiple algorithms/coins, gives me a wallet, and lets me transfer to an outside wallet/exchange. My second login will be the exchange (something that lets me convert my currency to local cash) when my balance justifies it. Given the recent Robin Hood announcement, I'm biding my time to see what happens. This space is getting competitive (lower fees).
Bottom line, it's easier now than it ever was before. As I told someone else, "Once I finally started, I wanted to kick my own ass for waiting so long."
New GPUs are expensive, but if you just wait, there will be a buttload of cheap, used GPUs for you!
Miners learned from the last crash. There were two types of miners in that crash: those who sold their GPUs at a loss, and those who kept mining and made out like bandits on the upswing. Turns out, cryptocurrency really does mimic the stock market (for now).
We're going to look at Bitcoin (BTC) to explain this. No, miners don't mine BTC. But, BTC is commonly what most coins are exchanged for (it makes up roughly one third of the entire cryptocurrency market). And it's the easiest currency to convert to cash. So, when BTC rises or falls in price, the rest of the market goes with it. That includes all of the coins that GPU miners are actually mining.
In January 2017, when the current mining push started, BTC was worth roughly $900 per coin. It's now worth roughly (as of this post) $12,000 per coin, down from a December high of over $20,000 per coin. So yea, the market "crashed." It's also more than 12x the value it was a year ago, when miners dove in. You think they're going to bail at 12x the value? Son, I've got news for you. This market needs to truly crash and burn for them to bail (and that's where you come in!).
So, there's not going to be a flood of used GPUs from a sudden market crash. Again, they've learned from that mistake. Used GPUs will enter the market when they are no longer profitable for mining, and not before. Dedicated miners have lots of room for expansion. When Volta comes out, they're not selling their Pascal GPUs. They're building new Volta mining rigs alongside the Pascal ones, making money off each of them.
Conclusion/TLDR:
  • Mining is subject to diminishing returns. It gets harder over time on the same hardware.
  • PC gamers joining the market en masse could trigger an apocalypse in terms of difficulty
  • Due to this, it benefits pro miners to spread misinformation to discourage gamers from entering the mining game
  • Casually mining on your existing system is safe, easy, could help you pay for your next upgrade(s), and could also hurt the mining market in general (better availability/pricing on GPUs)
  • No, there's no flood of used Pascal/Polaris/Vega GPUs around the corner, as those are HIGHLY profitable even in a depressed market
Second Conclusion - Why do I (jaykresge) personally care?
Simply put, I'm disgusted by this. I was excited about flipping a few friends from consoles to PC gaming. I'm now seeing a reverse trend. One friend is gaming on an RX 560 waiting for prices to hit sanity. He's running out of patience. Others have bailed.
I view our dormant GPUs as the best weapon against cryptocurrency mining. Destroy it from the inside. It's win-win for most of us. Either we earn enough for more upgrades, or we depress pricing. Something's got to give.
In other words, y'all f*ckers better start mining, because I want Volta to be reasonably priced when it launches so I can get an EVGA x80 Hybrid to go with a G-Sync monitor. And if this doesn't happen, I'm going to be cranky!
Seriously though, thanks for reading.
submitted by jaykresge to pcgaming [link] [comments]

Warning: Do not invest in MoneroV.

Okay MoneroV gets posted about enough I think it's time someone told the truth about what's going on. Save this post and paste it on other XMV threads, because this shit is a fucking scam.

Everything MoneroV does "differently" is a lie. Here are their claims.

Please save, share and spread this post like wildfire. As a large user of Monero I'm making this post completely against my own economical gain, but this really needs to be said. I would even encourage you to ask these questions on their subreddit (although fair warning you will get banned ). Stay safe and happy forking.

submitted by OsrsNeedsF2P to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Lightning Network on top of Bitcoin is like a strangler fig tree. "The Lightning system itself becomes the token, leaving Bitcoin, Litecoin and all Blockchains as dead and hollow ghosts of their former state."

The last start of a system such as Lightning is the creation of a system that mirrors a Strangler fig. This is portrayed in the image below. The Lightning system itself becomes the token, leaving Bitcoin, Litecoin and all Blockchains as dead and hollow ghosts of their former state. The myth is that we need to have an underlying system such as Bitcoin. I say myth here as the truth is we live in a world where legal tender is no longer backed by sound monetary policy and is designed to support the goals of the state.
In time, if Lightning was to become a trusted medium of exchange, it leads to the perverse scenario where it no longer requires a commodity base to make it work. This leads to a system of State currency that eats cryptocurrency (such as Bitcoin) away leaving only the promise of what it was. Some will get rich from this, but the system will not be Bitcoin, it will be a form of government exchanges and banks that swap account balances.
You can be told how this will never occur, but there is no other end. Exchanges and Lightning hubs are already systems that come within the control of the legal system. Once the controls and requirements to alter balances are incorporated (and this path leads to a Proof of State system with a Ripple-like consensus), the system is just the shell of what created it.
Lightning becomes the system that enslaves, not the system that frees the world.
It has been (deceptively) argued that for Bitcoin to use Payment channels, a malleability fix is required. This was and never shall be the case. Payment channels have been a feature of Bitcoin since the initial release. It was later that many of the features that helped make this simpler have been disabled and removed.
The truth is one of bitcoin being stronger as an alloy. SegWit (Segregated Witness) was incorporated into bitcoin to remove a (disingenuously) created vulnerability that never existed. The argued reason was to allow Bitcoin to utilise payment channels [11]. The truth is payment channels do not require non-malleable transactions. The only requirement for removing Malleability is to allow Lightning to act as a promissory note over Bitcoin and other blockchains. That is, to allow it to consume Bitcoin and to remove the economic system that created bitcoin.
The Lighting System differs from anything that Bitcoin used. It is a system of punishment-based bi-directional payment channels. It uses negative inducements rather than positive economic incentives as would be the case in Bitcoin natively. Punishment based channels of the form implemented in Lightning require a malleability fix. Payment channels and even atomic swaps can be completed without a malleability fix. A non-issue.
A high-frequency system such as we see discussed above never required malleability to be removed. Malleability is of no concern to this system.
The thing that matters far more than any of the technical uses of Malleability[3] is what malleability breaks. It makes the creation of a parasitic overlay more difficult and economically less viable. Bitcoin is a system that is resilient in many ways. The central aspect of this is that in its true form, it can capture other systems while remaining challenging to capture itself. More than anything else, SegWit and related “fixes” remove this resilience.
Without some level of transaction Malleability, the system can easily fragment into many coins, and these can then be captured (and consumed) by a system that is a digital equivalent of the existing fiat system. If you want to create a system that replaces fiat with a system controlled by the banks and government but which is more insidious… then you should be supporting SegWit and Lightning.
A miner of Bitcoin Core (BTC) should be concerned. BTC Hodl’ers should be concerned. Lightning required that malleability be removed as this allows the system to move to long-term channels that with cross chain swaps can eventually remove the underlying commodity cryptocurrency. As noted above, this in all forms is a security and is in the range of systems that require registering and management under the various AML/CTF laws.
In any system where there are asymmetries, one side has an advantage. In Bitcoin, the network was incentivised asymmetrically to allow for the growth of a small world and eventually a near complete graph. In Lighting, this forms a loose mesh with a small number of centrally controlled choke points. The economics of each system are designed with distinctly separate goals in mind.
Removing transaction malleability does not make Bitcoin more secure, it allows for a system of off chain swaps. It makes the creation and integration of side-chains simpler and removes one of the critical aspects of Bitcoin, scarcity. When Lightning (or another system in a similar form) can set the terms of the settlement and, in time even alter settlement to remove the requirement to hold the currency, we end where we are now. A system that has and will be debased.
At least Bitcoin Cash (BCH) managed to avoid this trap.
Source
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

The Great NiceHash Profit Explanation - for Sellers (the guys with the GPUs & CPUs)

Let's make a couple of things crystal clear about what you are not doing here:
But hey, I'm running MINING software!
What the hell am I doing then?!?
Who makes Profit, and how?
How is it possible everyone is making a profit?
Why do profits skyrocket, and will it last (and will this happen again)?
But my profits are decreasing all the time >:[
But why?!? I’m supposed to make lotsa money out of this!!!
But WHY!!!
  1. Interest hype -> Influx of Fiat money -> Coins quotes skyrocket -> Influx of miners -> Difficulty skyrockets -> Most of the price uptrend is choked within weeks, since it’s now harder to mine new blocks.
  2. Interest hype drains out -> Fiat money influx declines -> Coins quotes halt or even fall -> Miners still hold on to their dream -> Difficulty stays up high, even rises -> Earnings decrease, maybe even sharply, as it's still harder to mine new blocks, that may be even paid less.
So, how to judge what’s going on with my profits?
Simple breakdown of the relationship of BTC payouts by NiceHash, BTC/ALT Coins rates, and Fiat value:
BTC quote | ALTs quotes | BTC payout | Fiat value ----------------------------------------------------- UP | UP | stable*) | UP stable | UP | UP | UP UP | stable | DOWN | stable*) stable | stable | stable | stable DOWN | stable | UP | stable*) stable | DOWN | DOWN | DOWN DOWN | DOWN | stable*) | DOWN 
Some rather obvious remarks:
More help:
Disclaimer: I'm a user - Seller like you - not in any way associated with NiceHash; this is my personal view & conclusion about some more or less obvious basics in Crypto mining and particularly using NiceHash.
Comments & critics welcome...
submitted by t_3 to NiceHash [link] [comments]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

This sub is such a breath of fresh air.

I usually hang in in BitcoinMarkets/ (and occasionally check Bitcoin/) and reading btc/ has really thrown into sharp focus how biased and heavily censored those other subs are.
If you post anything negative about Bitfinex in r/BitcoinMarkets/, you instantly get multiple downvotes and all kinds of people arguing with you. Why would people be so passionate about an exchange that lost $72 million in customer funds? It never seemed natural ,and instead very fishy.
And of course any mention of new Tether creation is automatically removed/censored from r/BitcoinMarkets/. They claim it is a "conspiracy theory" even though the BTC price pumps so often right after the new tethers are issued.
The mods there are likely either in Bitfinex's pocket, or perhaps they fearful of those who run Bitfinex, so they are just doing what they are told to protect their careers and lives and families. I don't blame them in this case, but doesn't change the fact that it's a censored and manipulated discussion.
You also get downvoted heavily over there if you criticize the high Bitcoin miner fees. I've been into Bitcoin for about four years and I remember that low fees was one of the major advantages and selling points of BTC, and of crypto in general.
So just saying I was stubborn and dumb to not give btc a chance long ago. I believed the propaganda elsewhere about you guys, but you are actually the only ones speaking openly and honestly and truthfully.
submitted by Frederick420 to btc [link] [comments]

Aunt loses the chance to become a literal millionaire because of an pyramid scheme scam

I know what you may be thinking, no, the title isn't a click-bait, pretty much this happened some months before the huge bitcoin spike back in 2017.
PS: if the numbers look a bit random it's because I am converting the currency from MXN to USD.
PS2: Also pardon if some sentences are a bit wonky as English is not my mother tongue.
PS3: I'm a bit fussy on all the dates and numbers, but I'll try to be as specific as possible, also I'm an artist so don't quote me on my math.
So story time: both my aunt and uncle are pretty well established financially. My uncle is a retired veteran pilot from the US so he gets sent some money to his bank account monthly, and my aunt it's a pretty popular tattoo artists in our area and since we all live in Mexico their income is waaaaaaaaay above the average, which makes them also somewhat entitled. A bit unfair if you ask me.
Anyway, my uncle isn't tech savvy person but he is rather passionate about learning. He'll ask me from time to time very specific stuff like "What's a MIDI?" "What's a tracker on a torrent". What I mean is that he does research on his own and just ask me stuff when he's completely stuck.
So this all started in December 2016 I think, my uncle came visit so we could talk about cryptocurrency. At this point I wasn't an expert, but I knew a thing or two, and with some research we got a very well understanding.
Both he and my aunt wanted to invest a huge amount of money into cryptocurrency, it was I think around $500,000 Mexican pesos, which is around $26,326 USD. They got this money because back in the day when land was cheap, they purchased lots of it to build big houses which then they sold for a lot of money, so for them this is somewhat pocket change.
We looked into buying ant miners, investing into different cryptocurrencies, etc. We decided that one of the best possible options was to invest some money into buying bitcoin, as well as a couple ant miners (Special computers that calculate bitcoin but they use a LOT of power). And with time buy more ant miners.
One mystical day near the end of December, my aunt and uncle invited me to a very sketchy cryptocurrency conference, so I could be there to verify if the information said there was trustworthy.
Well, I didn't suspected much at first, but as soon as we got to the event hell broke lose. It wasn't an MLM it was straight up a pyramid scheme. The conference talked wonders about "Be your own boss" "Young people are becoming millionaires, this is how" "Never work a day in your life again" etc.
It was for this "new cryptocurrency" called sCoin, if you google it you will find a bunch of results in Spanish many of which have the word on the title "Is it a scam?" so... yeah this was a clear scam from the get go.
They talked about how you can buy different packages with different benefits. Get a $526 USD for each family member, and just wait for it to bloom and they can all become millionaires!, and if you get your friends or other family members to join under you, you get 25% of their revenue! And by the end of the year you could earn 10 times the money you invested! how cool is that!?!????
It was something like that.
Once the conference ended, we got to the car and I said "No fucking way, this is a pyramid scheme scam" Now, unfortunately my family has been into pyramid schemes from as far as I have memory, and I've never been able to explain to them why they are so bad, this time was no exception.
My uncle said he was a bit skeptical, but my aunt was like "Well it's just $526, we can buy like 10 packages it isn't much money" to which I internally screamed "IT IS A LOT OF MONEY"
So the next couple of weeks was mostly me and my uncle checking on the website, waiting for any updates and stuff, they would constantly send us YouTube videos, where people talked how big this sCoin thing was going to be, and the scary part was... these videos were recorded on a way that made them seem very relatable.
Each video featured one person talking to the camera ala VLOG style. Some presenters were 25-ish years old, while others were 40-ish or even 60-ish. They all where recording from their garden, showing how big of a house it was they lived in, showed off stuff like their cars, and talked about how entrepreneurs like them reached success putting their earnings into cryptocurrencies. The videos were very poorly edited, but I think this was done intentionally so they seemed more like "We are normal people like you and your friends, we aren't a company"
The videos had 200 visits at most, and comments were disabled in most of them, by the end of January every-time you googled for sCoin you would find about 50% videos made by these people explaining how big sCoin was going to become, and 50% blogs talking about how it was a pyramid scheme scam.
For people like me, this was clear it was a pyramid scheme, but for my relatives, the scheme blogs were clearly written from people who were jealous of the big entrepreneurs.
February arrived, and with it the supposed release of the sCoin... but oh? what's this? nothing happened? the website dint had any changes and when talking with their contacts from the sCoin they just said there was a small delay, now around this time two very big events happened which should've made it 100% clear this was a scam:
  1. We were given the "Address" of the company, whose roots are in Berlin, Germany, of course it had to be "Germany" all the big things in the world come from there, except it was a lie, see, back in the day I went to college with a couple German friends (I studied abroad in Canada and so did they). Locally one of my friends lived in Berlin and when I asked her if she could check the address she literally told me: This is the address of a mall. So when you by any chance looked for the address on street view you'd just see a big building and assume is the headquarters, given how everything is written in German but truth be told it was far from a corporation building it was just your average mall.
  2. The page was updated to sell sCoin through PayPal as a means to make the scam seem more legit. This was great because I have plenty of experience with PayPal, as I mentioned before I am an artist so most of my income comes from commissions paid through PayPal, I told my aunt that PayPal didn't allowed the purchase of any cryptocurrency to which she told me how could I know, I don't work there, so I got my laptop, opened my PayPal account, looked for the contact phone number and gave them a call to directly inquiry about the legitimacy of selling sCoin through PayPal, of course they said they don't allow such behaviour they would look into it and to be careful as this was most likely a scam.
Now I know for a fact PayPal looked into this, because not even a week passed by and we all got an email saying that unfortunately the people at PayPal were not entrepreneurs and they are morons who didn't wanted the opportunity to become millionaires through selling sCoin but once again, they told us sCoin IS NOT ILLEGAL.
By this point I was getting pretty annoyed, there were dozens of google searches saying this was a scam, their headquarters was a scam, their deal with PayPal was a scam, their supposed "big launch" never happened, but still my aunt and uncle believed these people were legit.
March came with another conference, this time for the people who have paid, my uncle in an impulse to participate on the conference bought 10 packages, they even put one of them to my name, so when I'm a millionaire I can put my own business and become an entrepreneur, yeeey thank you so much! Call me a ChosingBegar but I much prefer a bag full of dust it would've been more useful.
This conference was key because two big names I have read before were present, I don't remember the exact names, but when researching information about pyramid schemes one of these persons were mentioned as a lawyer from Guatemala who has been trying for years to make pyramid schemes legal and destroy their bad reputation, this lawyer has represented lots of companies who have gone to court for scamming people off.
I was like "I'm outies, this man in front of us is a literal criminal who helps other criminals why can't you see all that is wrong here?" Unfortunately my aunt and uncle decided to stay, what harm can listening to them do? I mean they already bought 5 packages of $526 USD each...
I couldn't stomach it anymore, I took a taxi and went to the bus station to come home as the conference was in another city. Both my aunt and uncle were upset I did this because I missed so much wisdom about how to be an entrepreneur but by this point I didn't cared anymore.
At this conference my aunt and uncle were convinced to invest a lot of money on sCoin they ended up investing the money they would've otherwise used on bitcoin and ant miners, investing a total of $26,326 USD
Month's passed, the launch date kept getting delayed and delayed and delayed, until around June, I watched a Philip D Franco video that talked about a huge boom on bitcoin. And by this point I started checking Bitcoin rate religiously, until August when it had it's biggest boom: $4,670 USD exchange rate.
My aunt and uncle gave sCoin $26,326 USD around the time where bitcoin costed $1200. If they had followed our initial plan of investing that money into bitcoin, they would've quadrupled their investment. They would have gotten around 389% their original investment which translates to around $102,408 USD or $1,943,387 MXN which is almost 2 million Mexican pesos.
Naturally, my aunt and uncle are pissed that they lost such a chance and they blamed me for a long time, to this day we don't talk to each other anymore, because of this and other reasons.
To this day, sCoin has yet to be launched.
submitted by captainjawz to iilluminaughtii [link] [comments]

I sold all my other cryptos yesterday and bought NAV

Hello everybody. Thought I should introduce myself and share my thoughts.
I'm fairly new to NAV because it has been under my radar and I have just been focused on other stuff and truth be told I never really thought that some decent coins could hide among all the other crap down the list. I'm not new to crypto generally. I have mainly held BTC/ETH/XRM/XRP/XEM and some others. I bought alot of XRP and later XEM when I started to feel uncomfortable about the whole mining craze. I was actually never really happy with Ripple but I knew that the Ripple team was onto something that could surpass the PoW era. I just couldn't see how XRP could ever become enough decentralized. XRP gained alot in value of course and I listened to people saying that Ripple is one of few with a real world use case. The thing is now that I'm not sure about this kind of reasoning anymore. Sure, bitcoin have had it's haydays when it was useful and Ethereum has built up a lot of trust and hope for awesome solutions in the future. But the truth is that the recent value rise in most of these cryptos is mostly speculation. My opinion is that Bitcoin was able to thrive through the underground because of the anonymity and dark web drug shops etc. I later also learned that the freedom of cryptos actually could give hope to people living under political conditions that I didn't even now existed. The crypto movement has always been kind of rebellious and I think it will still be in the future. It's hard to believe though today when every guy with a suit suddenly seems to be so interested in the technology. I've had so many discussions with this kind of people.. The problem is that they see an opportunity to make money in a thriving market but they just CAN NOT grasp what gives bitcoin and the likes it's value.
The mining business I was part of exceeded my wildest expectations but I think what's going on now is just insane. All the crap-coins people are investing in, the market swings and above all that all wasted energy with POW-mining just makes wonder.
This is basically why I think NAV as a plain currency has it's best days further ahead even though not many people have realised this yet. The extra features with ADapps, polymorph, etc of course adds to the value but they are not essential right now. I actually kind of think that Ethereum and some others are overdoing their "thing" and causing more problems than they solve. I've come to realise that a contract is not necessarily always more valuable the more complicated you make it. If you keep the value part of your contract-system less complicated it is easier among people to agree on the precision of your instrument, and therefore it could very well lead to a higher perceived value of the system itself. Okey I could rant about this forever..
So, anyway.. yesterday I sent it all into NAV. It feels like I finally have found what I've been looking for and don't really think I would loose my faith even if it dropped 50% tomorrow. Just the idea of having my own little microbank staking the whole network from my own house is amazing. This is what Bitcoin was meant to be. All the forks of BTC is just products of desperate investers (miners and pool-operators mainly) that is stuck in their already dying business. So.. Until I've found a better alternative than NAV, this is where I will stay. All my friends thinks I'm insane for putting all eggs in one basket but I have a feeling it will be good. What do you think?
submitted by kid80 to NavCoin [link] [comments]

I have a bitcoin related website. Check out the super hilarious and obviously scripted letter I got from a 'real' segregated witness supporter.

Hello,
I would be interested to know if the revelations over the past week have changed your mind about BU and the intentions of the miners who are refusing to enable Segwit because it destroys their covert advantage? To me it seems pretty clear why they have been blocking segwit.
As a former big blocker myself, I am not necessarily opposed to a hard fork, but it doesn't make sense if there are soft fork options on the table. Segwit accomplishes a 1.7x increase to the block size without impacting older nodes. Satoshi was brilliant to have invented bitcoin, but one may argue that the core devs have more knowledge now than anyone did when he left in 2011. It is nearly unanimous among the current active contributors to bitcoin core that segwit is the first step to increasing bitcoin's capacity.
from a [email protected]
You can't get a faker feel than this, can you?
My response below:
Hi John,
I am curious as to what revelations you have had? We have known about ASIC-boost for a while now, and while the hardware containing the potential for a covert use is intriguing I am saddened to see so many people lose all reason and logic so easily. There is no evidence this ASIC-boost was ever actually used covertly, yet some people seem to see no problem with insisting something happened when the data says it did not. Worse yet, some people seem to have been told that this had anything to do with segregated witness. We have known about the problems with segregated witness: https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e">https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e for some time, the soft fork version of segregated witness seems an especially poor decision from a computer science point of view, and it is a shame about the lost labor that went into the design. In any case there is ample evidence to show people dislike segregated witness based on the merits of segregated witness, in no relation in any way to ASIC-boost. Then of course there is the other problem that it appears Greg Maxwell lied about reverse engineering the microchip. This is not the first time something like this has happened, where Greg has made a large accusation and failed to provide even a hint of supporting evidence. Personally I have lost trust in him over a year ago after I notices how he was never helpful in discussion and sometimes wrong but would never admit when he was wrong. That is the sign is a bad scientist.
Anyway, over with my diatribe, back to your letter.
No, I don't see any evidence whatsoever to back up the opinion you posted, is there any evidence whatsoever to backup the idea that miners are 'blocking' segregated witness, not for it's many faults, but because it limits something that isn't even being done? No I think that is illogical and I think that whole tale sounds like something a snake oil salesman would sell to the easily manipulated. I say this because there are and have been for many months very good reasons why segregated witness is a bad design and path forward for bitcoin/">bitcoin. Do you have any data that shows why segregated witness is a good idea.
Did you read my post on /rbtc?
I don't understand your aversion to hardforks, I can't find any data to suggest a planned fork would be a danger, do you have any supporting data? Why do you think a soft fork is better? Is it because of the name? Is this a decision you came to on your own or are you repeating the opinions you read online?
Segregated witness also cripples the network and damns it to the current state, I want the original Bitcoin back, the way it was designed to be. The way it was when I started using it.
I don't know where you are getting your information but you should expand your resources.
Your letter feels incredibly scripted and insincere (Mr Sock), so much that I don't honestly believe you believe anything you just wrote. But on the small off chance that you have been brainwashed so severely I am here to work out with you each of your problems and that together we can arrive at the truth.
Let's face it, segregated witness will never activate on Bitcoin, neither will BIP101, 102, or 103; we need to face the future instead of dwelling in the past. You'll end up like uncle Rico.
-Jack
submitted by ProfBitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

[ANN] Developer Announcements - May 2018

All messages are taken from the official Linx Slack and Twitter with permission of the developer to share here
Previous threads:
[ANN] Developer Announcements - August 2017 [ANN] Developer Announcements - September 2017 [ANN] Developer Announcements - October 2017 [ANN] Developer Announcements - November 2017 [ANN] Developer Announcements - December 2017 [ANN] Developer Announcements - January 2018 [ANN] Developer Announcements - February 2018 [ANN] Developer Announcements - March 2018
May 1
Dev: Hi guys, we hope that you are all well. Please find our May update below.
https://mylinx.io/news/may-2018-update/ May Update:
Payment Integration: Unfortunately we have to announce that our first scheduled Linx payment retail integration has been delayed. Of course this comes as a disappointment for us as we're sure it does to you too. We have uploaded a press release from Traxsource below explaining the situation. Here is a transcription :
April 30th, 2018
Due to the increased work load involved in our ongoing store upgrades we are not in a position to integrate the Linx payment system on May 1st as planned.
We are extremely disappointed to announce this news, as both sides have put so much time & effort into making this happen. It goes without saying that we will continue to offer our full support to the Linx project & the team behind it. We hope to be able to bring this project to fruition at a later date.
Sincerely,
Brian Tappert Traxsource Managing Director
The platform : As you will no doubt be aware recent guidelines and regulations in the protection and handling of personal data is changing the way web based platforms operate. API access to some of the biggest social networks is now being restricted among other things and this has caused us to rethink a few major aspects of our own platform.
Although we firmly believe the new data regulations are a great thing for end users, it has also resulted in changes to some of the features that were originally incorporated . Our original schedule for the roll out of the platform was in stages. First we would introduce a fully functional baseline system and then start adding more features over time. After much discussion, we have now agreed that we need to deliver a much more ambitious platform from the get go. One additional aspect of the resdesigned platform is that we will now be including an audio upload and streaming service which will allow artists and musicians to showcase and sell their music directly (using Linx of course) from their profile page.
We are very close to completion and will notify beta testers as soon as we comfortable with the new model so you can put it through it's paces before release.
Block halving : Welcome news for long term holders is that in around 36 days the Linx block reward halves for the first time since our blockchain launched. This will reduce the block reward from 50 to 25 Linx, dramatically slowing down the amount of freshly minted Linx released every day. You can monitor the countdown to halving at the following page : https://mylinx.io/halving
Source and Wallets : The team is currently working on a completely updated version of the Linx source code which implements many of the latest developments in blockchain tech. iOS and Droid wallets will follow the release of the new source. As we're sure most of you are already aware, Linx wallet support is already available for iOS and Android in the excellent Coinomi app : https://coinomi.com
Lastly, although the unexpected delay in our first retail integration was not the news we’d hoped to deliver to you today, we hope that finally knowing who the retailer is will go some way to easing any concerns you may have had about the validity of the Linx project or the abilities of our team. Although we have had to adjust the schedule of our roadmap our goals for Linx remain unchanged. There is a ton of exciting things happening behind the scenes but we remain reluctant to speak about them until they are ready to be realized. In light of the current situation we hope that you will understand the reasoning behind our position on this. For those that are uncomfortable not knowing what's coming, we totally understand and trust you will use your best judgement with regards to any Linx holdings you may have.
If you have any questions about anything ask away and we'll do our best to address them where possible here in the slack channel.
Team Linx
May 2
Dev: Hi guys, before we address your questions we just want to say that the reactions to the news yesterday from the community both in here, on Telegram and on Twitter has left us somewhat deflated. We knew the delay wasn't going to be well received but we hoped that you would see that the delay was not of our making, and see the positives in revealing the name of our partner and also realise that we have been completely straight with you from the start. Instead we watched some of our "supporters" calling us scammers, some even insinuating that we dumped ahead of the announcement. Neither could be further from the truth. Emotions were running high yesterday. We wanted to let everybody have their say before we responded to anything. With that said, onto some of your questions and comments...
User: "Some of us are holders and miners from june. We deserve more @linx team" Dev: We appreciate your frustration John as we are feeling exactly the same. Months and months of work on the payment system took priority over everything else as we knew it was going to be a massive coup for the project integrating with one of the most reputable dance music retailers in the world. The amount of work involved set us back with everything else. Remember, we don't have millions of dollars raised from an ICO to just employ an army of people to get this done. All we can do is assure you that nothing has changed from our perspective, if anything our vision, especially for the platform, is bigger now than we first anticipated. We totally appreciate and respect people like yourself that have been with us from the start and shown real support for the project and we hope that your faith in the project remains.
User: "Unfortunately devs probably knew for quite some time that this wasn’t happening today and used their recent hype to dump their bags." Dev: Not true. For those calling us scammers or liars or insinuating that we have dumped our supply, we suggest that you save yourself the anxiety and exit now without looking back.
User: "if there was an exchange they would have mentioned it" Dev: Check out the guidelines and rules for listing on any of the larger exchanges.
User: "its been 1 year with nothing to show for it at the moment" Dev: Not true and extremely insulting.
User: "you don't give us enough information" Dev: Yes this is a valid point, but we did tell you how we planned to operate from day one. If we felt we could tell you things and they wouldn't be used as hyping weapons we would be much more forthcoming. The last thing we wanted from this project was a lot of hot air out there and a community getting progressively angered by promises of things to come that are yet to materialise. Yesterday, when we did say something, we watched as people from the crypto community publicly attempted to rubbish our project to our retail partner. Yes, against our better judgement we have made some statements, in good faith, regarding our roadmap along the way to address some of the constant questions raised from the community. The reason we never wanted to say anything prematurely is hopefully blatantly obvious now. We fully understand the never ending cycle of hype and fud that the cryptoscene thrives on, but we told you from the start that we were not going to do that.
User: "Since the first partnership didn't go through for now, could you tell us a bit more about the future business strategy of linxpay? Will you release the retail or consumer software to public?" Dev: Absolutely. We weren't planning to release this until the retail version was out there but yes, the consumer version will be fast forwarded now for sure. Work on the platform is currently taking priority, once that's finished this will be next. Think of it like an alternative to the paypal model. It will be as simple as registering an account and making a simple API call to start accepting Linx on any website or blog.
User: "Why set deadlines at all if it's not set in stone with Traxsource." Dev: We didn't. We agreed a deal with Traxsource in 2017. The timelines for integration were chosen and subsequently postponed by Traxsource for valid and unavoidable reasons. The 'set in stone' date of May 1st was their choice as was made clear in our previous announcement.
User: "please tell us about new exchanges." Dev: We have submitted, and are still actively submitting exchange listings. That's all we can say right now. We know that's not exactly what you want to hear but it's the truth.
User: "Good luck finding a link to that "press release" anywhere, likely fake." Dev: It's probably a good idea to wait and see next time before you accuse us of being fraudsters. The press release was entirely Traxsource's idea. They are fully aware that this further delay from their end might hurt our reputation and this is the last thing they wanted to happen. They have supported us from the start. The music industry is extremely fluid and unfortunately full of unexpected circumstances that often cause delays.
User: "reveal the identity of the devs please" Dev: If you are unable to trust us without knowing who we are then this isn't the project for you. There are plenty of crypto projects with photographs and linkedin accounts for you to invest in. We have our reasons for wanting to remain anonymous which we'll explain a bit more in the following answer.
User: "Could you provide a valid business reason why being anonymous is a good thing for Linx?" Dev: Sure. Has the anonymous nature of Bitcoin prevented it from being adopted? Charlie Lee recently stated that he will eventually pull away from the Litecoin project as he doesn't feel having a public head for the project is a good thing. We feel exactly the same way. Any project should thrive (or fail) based on the project, and not who is behind it and what they say or do. Also remaining anonymous allows us to poole our enormous resources without interference from the crypto community. For example - this was tweeted directly to our retail partner yesterday "@traxsource we have some developers who will build and deploy a working product. No need to work with @linXcoin".
User: "scam exit today?" Dev: No.
User: "So they've dumped everything" Dev: No.
User: "Why release the name of the partner? if the deal was still on you would keep the name hidden for competitive advantage" Dev: Do you think that this was the way either us or Traxsource wanted to announce this integration? Can you imagine the fallout if we had simply said that there was another delay without telling you anymore? We had no choice but to reveal the name and we are massively disappointed that we had to do it this way.
User: "The fact that you didn't begin the marketing is a problem" Dev: Yes it is a problem but we couldn't. The marketing of this integration is a joint venture between ourselves and Traxsource.
User: "obviously this is a huge disappointment for you guys, as I can't even imagine the man hours you've put into this project." Dev: Yes this is a massive disappointment for us. We have been working towards this since last year. Other aspects of the project were put on the back burner as this took priority. It's the last thing we wanted or expected and has put us behind schedule several times now, not to mention also delaying other aspects that were tied to the release of this integration. We are now having to adjust our strategy to fit the situation which is not easy when we've been working to said strategy for over a year.
User: "Also if items have changed it would be good to provide fans with more realistic + achievable timelines" Dev: Although we completely understand, and in another situation would totally agree, this is something that we will not be doing. Once bitten... From here on out we will only talk about things that are imminent. That way there is no room for disappointment on either side. We feel this is the only way to proceed and maintain credibility in the current climate.
User: "thank you for this good partnership" Dev:Thank you for again being one of the few that has actually picked up on what a big achievement this is. From the very start we asked you to trust us and for those that have, hopefully we've been proven worthy of that trust.
User: "The team must show more respect for investors" Dev: We haven't received a single penny of investment from anybody.
User: "If they didn't care about crypto community and communication at all, why give all those promises they knew they couldn't 100% deliver?" Dev: The failure for this to happen on the announced dates was not our call, we were 100% ready.
User: "So no milestone has been accomplished" Dev: If pairing up with one of the biggest retailers in our industry and thereby opening Linx up to an entirely new and significantly large audience is not a milestone then nothing we do is ever going to be good enough for you.
User: "The "store upgrade workload" reason sounds bullshit." Dev: It's not. We know the reasons for the latest delay and they are 100% valid.
User: "I think the regulations gave them cold feet" Dev: That is not the reason, see answer above.
User: "I firmly believe that Linx will have its chance to show itself to the world, and maybe it will not take long". Dev: Thank you for the vote of confidence, so do we! We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't :)
User: "The fact is the awareness of this project is only maintained by the community." Dev: Do you really think Traxsource agreed to partner with us because of the Linx community?
User: "If you are really so confident, please at least show us some proof so we can trust?" Dev: Very confused by this question, this seems an impossible ask.
User: "technically, maybe it would have been better for the devs to simply just keep the project closed as they once mentioned" Dev: Agreed.
User: "Keep in mind that there seemed to have been a NDA between linx and their partner" Dev: A fact that most other people haven't picked up on and yes, you are correct. It's not just Linx that needs to keep plans under wraps for competitive edge, our partners do too.
User: "Take a closer look at Traxsource instead and what a quality business it appears to be." Dev: Exactly. Anybody who knows anything about our market knows how big a deal this is. Maybe it would be useful for some to go back and read what Linx is all about.
User: "I just hope that the devs won't lose the motivation to achieve what they had planned". Dev: No we won't. Of course we would benefit from less criticism and more support from the community though :)
User: "I can't speak for everyone but personally as an EDM fan I truly want to see the project become reality and would love to help make it become a reality in any way I can". Dev: You are exactly the kind of person that we hoped would get behind the project and we value your support.
Dev: We have only covered a handful of questions here but it is clear that 2 of the biggest concerns you have relate to communication from us and listing on more exchanges. We will look into making both of these matters a priority going forward. We appreciate that there are some of you that have been with us since the start and we wish this recent announcement had been different for you as much as for ourselves. The last thing we wanted to do is let anybody down. It's especially hard when things are beyond our control as they were in this instance. We'll ensure that a repeat of this situation doesn't happen again by only releasing information on things that are imminent, no big lead ups.
We also hope that our answers to some of your questions do not come across too rude or dismissive, as that is really not our intention, but it is really important that we are quite blunt in our answers to avoid any misunderstandings.
In closing we just want to say that we are very encouraged by the support and activity in the community run Telegram channel especially. Please don't think that we don't care about, watch and value your support in the community channels, we most certainly do.
May 15
Dev:Hey guys,
Hope you're all well.
To address one of the issues brought up recently we are going to be posting progress updates and answer some of your questions every week or two from now on. Any questions you have can be posted in any of the Linx social groups and we'll pick a few and answer what we can.
Progress Updates :
-- Exchanges: As you are all no doubt aware the space has changed a lot over the past few months and many exchanges now only seem to be interested in ERC20 tokens that have raised significant funds from an ICO - and therefore can afford the substantial listing prices that some centralised exchanges are currently charging. We have some options on the table but we would really like to hear feedback from the community as to which exchanges they would prefer to see us spend the money on.
With that said we are totally prepared to follow the listing fee route with exchanges that still offer this option (fewer and fewer of them around it seems), but as mentioned above we would like to get some feedback from you guys before we proceed as we need to choose wisely. We want to ensure that there is a bigger marketplace for Linx traders but at the same time we don't want to see pump and dumps.
We have already submitted listing applications to several of the big exchanges but we have no further details to report at this time.
We've also begun adding Linx to voting systems on exchanges that offer this feature. Here is the voting link for SouthXchange - https://www.southxchange.com/Home/Vote - the Linx voting address is 16bt2DWHh2hxzgjK31sCifiLuUcvQaUFti if you want to support this listing. If there are any exchanges in particular that you would like us to add please let us know.
Although this is not ideal right now we believe that the future is going to be much brighter as more and more people move towards decentralised exchanges. We most certainly will be adding Linx to as many of these as possible as soon as the updated Linx source is released. The updated source fully supports DEX requirements.
-- Platform: We implemented some exciting tech this week on the streaming side of things. Beta testers will get to try it first and once we're happy that the platform is ready to launch we'll be able to tell you about it. Yes this is secretive but for good reason. We are not trying to sell anything based on this information, we're just keeping you in the loop while building something new and fresh. The last thing we need is somebody trying to copy our ideas before we've had a chance to release them. All things going well we should be in a position to give you a timeframe for the beta release in the next update. If you are wondering why you can't see any activity on our github for anything to do with the platform it's because it's all being done on our own self hosted private gitlab repository. At some point in the future we may open this repo up for community contributions, but for now it's strictly an in-house affair. Just because you can't see what's happening doesn't mean we're not busy beavering away :)
-- Retail Integration: No further news on this at the moment, please see the statement from Traxsource if you are unaware of the current situation.
Please get your questions in for the next update, we're listening :)
Wishing you all a fantastic week and, as always, thank you for being #LinxHeadz!
User: can you expand even a little on the music streaming platform?
Dev:Sure, the streaming part is just one aspect of the platform. It will enable artists to self-distribute. It can be used to simply showcase their work (think Soundcloud etc) or it can be used as a direct-to-fan sales platform utilizing instant purchases and downloads. It can also be used as a secure private distribution platform, for example - a producer or band sending out demo's to record labels. The labels will be able to play the track but the public will have no access or even knowledge that the track exists.
User: Regarding the exchanges and fees: can you elaborate on what options are on the table?
Dev:We'd rather not for the simple reason that once we start naming exchanges it opens up the doors for potentially negative responses aimed at said exchanges, remember this is all being discussed in a public forum. But more importantly, we don't want to lead the conversation. Right now the addition of new exchanges is more important to you guys than it is to us, so we'd rather hear what you want without trying to steer the debate in one direction or another.
Thanks for the suggestions of exchanges so far, please keep them coming.
May 21
Dev: Hi guys, please find some responses to your recent comments, suggestions and questions below. Team Linx
User: "wish we had more info about the payment system" Dev: As mentioned before, we spent months building a highly customised version just for Traxsource. As well as being a realtime payment processing engine it also includes a fully detailed customer management and tracking system including accounting and refund processing. It's incredibly simple to install on a retailers server and it is also completely self-hosted. It doesn't rely on, or even talk to, any of our servers. It only requires one live encrypted node (that doesn't even have to be localised) to connect to the Linx blockchain and a server with a valid SSL certificate to operate. It will convert several different FIAT currencies into Linx on the fly based on the current average exchange rate and includes weighting options for the retailer to cover any potential price swings. It's a fully automated system that creates unique user accounts for each customer and tracks their purchase history - it can even offer automatic discounts based on this. It fully integrates with any existing customer database or accounting system that a retailer may already have. It has several levels of security built in including anti-fraud mechanisms. It has a complete user management system whereby the sysadmin can grant varying levels of restricted access to company employees. It truly is a one click solution for any retailer that wants to start accepting Linx on an existing store and a fully functional out of the box customer management system for those wanting to open an online store from scratch. What was once a simple payment processing engine has evolved into a beast of a system unlike anything else out there in this space for sure.
User: "Do you feel the current developers can handle the workload required? Any plans to expand the linx team in the near term?” Dev: It is a lot of work, and the unexpected delays haven't helped at all, but it's important that these early stages of the platform are completed by the core team as they understand the full vision. Yes, we absolutely plan to expand the team once the platform stage is out of the way. We are actively looking for a dedicated lead iOS Dev, (if anybody in the community has suggestions we are all ears). We've already got people waiting to go with regards to the music PR side of things, we've had them from the start.
User: "new exchange suggestions" Dev: Many thanks to all of those that have put forward their suggestions of potential exchanges. We have been making applications where relevant. Some exchanges have already got back to us with offers of listing fees. Once we hear back from all of them we'll review the situation and decide where to go from there.
User: "Bittrex" Dev: We have already re-submitted Linx for listing on Bittrex. When we originally submitted it last year, the circulating coin supply was too low. At the time they required at least 10% of the total supply to be out there, this wasn't the case back then, but it is now. Please keep in mind that if Bittrex does decide to list Linx we will not be able to talk about it.
User: "TradeOgre also is free and good coins are being added there" Dev: Linx has been submitted for listing on TradeOgre.
User: "Dex exchanges" Dev: We will be submitting to many of these as soon as the updated source code is released. There are BIP's in the updated source that are required for DEX listings.
User: "what about the exchange you said you had?", "why aren't you talking about that?", "they have also made irresponsible announcements such as that they had 1 definite and more pending exchanges" Dev: We have definite options on the table to pay for listing Linx. We are not going to disclose what exchanges these are until, and if, we decide to actually go with any of these. This was the primary reason why we asked for your opinions.
User: "starting a community fund to cover exchange listing fees" Dev: Thank you, this is true community spirit and let's us know how much you care about this project being successful! Hopefully this won't be required but it's good to know that some of you have got our backs in this respect :)
User: "there's something fishy going with big buy orders", "looks like insider trading", "somebody knows something" Dev: As mentioned above, we have submitted Linx to several exchanges. It's possible that any of these could have decided to get some supply prior to a potential listing, but if that is the case we certainly wouldn't know about it.
User: "linx kiosk and linxtalk.org" Dev: Neither of these are anything to do with us.
User: "They abandoned the project for the moment. No roadmap,no news about exchanges, no news about the integration with TRAXSOURCE, no real dates when they communicate Only promises. I think they did on puropose to let the price go down" Dev: Categorically not true. Why would we want to kill the value of our own project and upset the entire community at the same time? We’d lose all round! If anything, it's posts spreading FUD like this that could be having negative effects on the price. Of course it's your right to say whatever you want if that's what you believe, just don't expect anything positive to come of it if you do though.
User: "sometimes I think they are professionals and they know what they do, other times I think they are naive and lacking in experience", "i think they are just to slow for crypto business", "I feel like the project is being run by arrogant musicians rather than business folk with common sense", "honestly I dont think we can expect anything from Linx" Dev: How are these comments at all helpful or constructive? Insulting our project management, our team's characters' and our abilities has no value and is nothing more than that - throwing insults. Not only is it unhelpful but it’s irresponsible to the rest of the community. These forums were set up for supporters of the project. Please remember that they are also accessible to any potential exchange or business partner. Anybody that uses these forums to simply slag off the project and the team are undermining all of our efforts and the efforts of the rest of the community to move the project forward, not to mention the negative effects comments like this will have on new members joining.
User: "They have said many times their least concern is the investors" Dev: Of course we are concerned that people have put their faith and trust in us and we aim to deliver, but if you want us to make a choice between working on making this happen or spending our time posting pointless updates to keep speculators happy the work will win every time.
We all win when we achieve what we've set out to do and then you guys start shouting about how great it is and inviting people to see for themselves. We've taken onboard the valid criticisms about the lack of communication and are actively rectifying that.
User: "You don't have to do things just to tick them..." Dev: So you want us to lie then? Wrong project.
User: "I doubt linx really want to avoid the crypto community and not understand the importance of community support, but their stance is that they only want hype when the hype is supported by fact. After being burnt by their own mini-hype they are even more conservative in leaking info now." Dev: 100% correct. It has never been our intention to cut the crypto community out, if that were the case we would have just got on and done our thing without even bothering to tell anybody about it until we were ready to go.
We are all too aware of what "community" can sometimes mean in the crypto space. We know there are many of you that support our vision and are very excited, as are we, about what we are trying to achieve, but sadly this doesn't ring true for lots of others. We're not naive, we know a lot of you are here to make money and then move on to the next thing. That's absolutely fine, but don't get that confused with "community support". What we have tried to do from the start is minimise the hype/fud that "communities" rely on as our goal for this project is much more than to just be another coin sitting on an exchange. We are building something that we hope will revolutionise the way assets change hands in our industry (the music business). This is why we haven't subscribed to the same tactics that some other crypto projects use. We know we have something here and we believe we can make this happen. We don't need, or want, people shilling the project based on future promises. We brought this project to the crypto community to give those of you that liked the sound of what we are planning the chance to get involved and support it early. We knew we were a way off from realising most of our goals which is why we haven't hyped it yet.
User: "hard questions require harder answers" Dev: Couldn't agree more, let's do it!
User: "1. Rapidly improve the entire approach to communications and remove all previous lead dev arrogance.” Dev: Communication criticisms have been taken on board, hence the regular Q&A. Lead dev arrogance? What is your reason for this comment? Please expand.
User: "2. List the coin on many many more exchanges immediately (Use dev fee if needed and discuss community raised funds).” Dev: As mentioned above, Linx has been submitted to many exchanges and the community raised funds issue has also been addressed.
User: "3. Hire more team members (actually use the dev fee / no man is an island)." Dev: So you'd like us to dump our dev fee on the exchanges to hire some more people? What do you suppose that would do to the price and confidence in the project right now? Is this really what you want us to do? We are managing this project responsibly. As explained above, we will expand our team when needed.
User: "4. Set out a new clear product roadmap that is achievable, and stick to it. This is just software, break it down and get it out there.” Dev: We have a roadmap. This isn't just "software". We are talking about opening up the crypto space to an entirely new market here. The marketing and branding of this project is just as, if not more, important as the "software".
User: "5. Stop creating more hidden sub projects / idealistic dreams, this will hurt the overall brand and project long term, if the mic cable gets pulled out again inadvertently.” Dev: You mean like issuing a new roadmap?
User: "6. Think about strategy, security and data privacy, way in advance (GDPR re: linx social platform api usage - should have seen that a mile off).” Dev: Security and privacy have been utmost in our thinking since day one. It's one of the reasons we created Linx in the first place. It's also why we shut down our web wallet. With regards to GDPR we have been fully compliant since the first line of code was typed. What we couldn't account for was how the big social platforms were going to limit, or in some cases entirely lock down their API’s due to GDPR. We've had to make adjustments based on ongoing changes being made to these platforms, as will any other platform using API’s in this way. As mentioned in the last Q&A this has actually pushed us in another, much bolder direction than we first anticipated. It's just going to take a bit longer to realise it.
User: "7. Release the new 2.0 source code and talk about it with your community." Dev: The new source is coming and there will be a full update about what's changed when it's released.
User: "8. Do more Q&A’s." Dev: Hello :)
User: "9. Listen to and work with your community (crypto or otherwise) there is much intelligence in mass. Do not ever alienate them again, these are your fans, holders and miners, keeping your network secure. Without them, this will be doomed to the bedroom.” Dev: We are well aware of the importance of the miners that secure the network. We chose a POW algorithm to ensure that Linx could involve the entire crypto scene. We also value the support of the community when it's real support or valid criticism, and not just bitching because their planned pump and dump didn't pay off. As you can see, we will happily address any valid question or criticism. But we're not going to pander to people that are simply insulting us.
User: "10. Keep positive." Dev: Why would we not be positive? It does wonders for our team moral reading comments from our "supporters" about how useless we are, it really encourages us. Seriously though, If you really mean this and want us to keep positive then you the community can help with this. Insulting us, spreading FUD & general negging is not the way to help with positivity.
submitted by CryptoSaul to LINXcoin [link] [comments]

BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY ADD Max Keiser explains why only gold, silver and bitcoin can ... How To Mine 2 1 BTC In 3Mins BITCOIN MINER PRO - YouTube The Shocking Truth About Bitcoin Mining - You Are Being Lied To! What Is BitCoin - No one can better explains

r/Bitcoin: A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the currency of the Internet. Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money … Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. r/Bitcoin. log in sign up. User account menu. 42. Bitcoin mining, house fire, potential millions lost. Close. 42. Posted by. u/yjamal01. 2 years ago. Archived ... When a miner finds a block, the mining operation or pool is rewarded 12.5 coins per block. The coinbase reward of 12.5 bitcoins is comprised of coins that have never been transacted, as they are ... Bitcoin is NOT a bank or a company, its revolutionary. Bitcoin is a revolution in decentralised, trust less, boarder less, money. Bitcoin is NOT a bank or a company if some one rings you up its not Bitcoin. There is no office, no one you can ring. BEWARE OF SCAMS pretending to be bitcoin. Bitcoin BTC is the original and king of Crypto’s. GET FREE BITCOIN WITH OUR NEW BITCOIN MINER ! YOU CAN GET UP TO 0.5 BTC PER DAY WITH THIS BITCOIN MINER. The professional team of programmers who built Bitcoin Miner PRO 2018 V 3.2, focused largely onthe technical infrastructure. The backbone of our BITCOIN MINER v3.1 tool is solid. It ensures great speed, high securi In Bitcoin mining, multi-threading is a process whereby a miner can search for multiple nonces at the same time (a nonce is the cryptographic number that miners are searching for when mining for a ...

[index] [50699] [28572] [41662] [13382] [38423] [23671] [23387] [1352] [22647] [50117]

BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY ADD

Lets talk about Bitcoin and what I THINK caused the recent jump in price - enjoy! Add me on Instagram: GPStephan The YouTube Creator Academy: Learn EXACTLY h... Bitcoin mining and its energy use is back in the news again. What is the reality of the industry and what are you not being told? Sources https://www.wired.c... Bitcoin mining difficulty, which is the measure of how hard it is to compete for mining rewards, just jumped by 9.89%, climbing above 17 T for the first time and reaching 17.35 T. Last time it ... We seek to provide individual solutions to collective problems. In order to prepare for the collapse of the dollar and the inevitable riots of unprepared pop... During volatile market conditions, investors should be looking for assets that represent stores of value, like gold, silver, and bitcoin, this according to M...

#