5 Best Bitcoin Mining Hardware ASIC Machines (2020 Rigs)

Butterfly Labs Announces 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Mining Processor

submitted by xezirone to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BFL is possibly misleading customers to get pre-orders.

On their 300GH and 600GH cards BFL has now replaced the "Pre-Order" button with an "Order" button instead.
Nothing about the checkout procedure itself even hints this is a pre-order.
The few notices that these are pre-orders are at the main products page: Here Huh, look at that, those buttons say pre-order instead..
and some various text mostly near the bottom of the individual pages.
This is a pre-order. 28nm ASIC bitcoin mining hardware products are shipped according to placement in the order queue, and delivery may take 3 months or more after order. All sales are final.
I'm sorry but shouldn't the product name have "PRE-ORDER" affixed to it? Especially when it's in the cart..
I can easily skim the page, think I'm getting an awesome deal, add it to my cart and make full unrefundable payment without notice otherwise.
This strikes me as deceptive sales practices. Be alert guys!
submitted by Roobotics to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

SFARDS 28nm BTC 038 LTC Dual-Algorithm ASIC For Bitcoin Mining Unveiled

SFARDS 28nm BTC 038 LTC Dual-Algorithm ASIC For Bitcoin Mining Unveiled submitted by bossmanishere to litecoin [link] [comments]

SFARDS 28nm BTC & LTC Dual-Algorithm ASIC For Bitcoin Mining Unveiled

http://www.muchbitcoin.org/ - Bitcoin Education
submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

[X-post] 0.06 j/GH mining eficiency is possible with 28nm / 55nm ASICs? /r/Bitcoin

[X-post] 0.06 j/GH mining eficiency is possible with 28nm / 55nm ASICs? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

SFARDS 28nm BTC & LTC Dual-Algorithm ASIC For Bitcoin Mining Unveiled

http://www.muchbitcoin.org/ - Bitcoin Education
submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

SFARDS 28nm BTC & LTC Dual-Algorithm ASIC For Bitcoin Mining Unveiled

http://www.muchbitcoin.org/ - Bitcoin Education
submitted by MuchBitcoin to MuchBitcoin [link] [comments]

BitFury Launches New 28nm Bitcoin Mining ASIC

BitFury Launches New 28nm Bitcoin Mining ASIC submitted by BTCNews to BTCNews [link] [comments]

After two huge increases (10.44% and 8.77%) difficulty is expected to grow another 13.26%

See https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty
What's driving this?
submitted by bobthesponge1 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%)

Mining difficulty is now 267,731,249 (+41%) submitted by Dansuke to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Obelisk's Sia ASICs - Full Details

https://obelisk.tech
Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working.
The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018.
Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule.
The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less.
The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later.
We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much.
We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference.
The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month).
The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk.
Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers.
Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies.
We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

My response to the Dev Fork decision

Since I penned the original Community Fork proposal, I felt the need to address the decision to fork and the medium post attempting to justify the radical departure from what the community sought. The italics are quotes from the post, the following text is mine.

The first several statements are in regard to what happened in January.

The core developers ultimately decided against forking.
--
This statement sets the table by clearly laying out what happened in January with a statement the project is centralized as Nebulous went against the community in not forking then. The same holds true on today's statement.

Decentralization is valuable because there is nobody in control, and we weren’t comfortable releasing an update that threatened to rip the community in half.
--
In other words, we asserted control and made a highly centralized decision to protect the community. It is Orwellian in attempting to explain that war is peace.

ironically the people leaving in the largest droves were those who most aggressively opposed the fork during the earlier debates
--
Even if evidence existed to determine this, it's doubtful. The people most active against the fork were A3 purchasers and those people had ROI to meet. Even if they decided the Discord was a bit toxic, they still fulfilled a role securing the network. The author frequently makes assertions that cannot be defended with fact.

Sia’s biggest supporters and believers were the ones that got hit hardest by the mining catastrophe, and despite this loss, they were also the ones who stuck through the hardest times.
--
What did they lose? Obelisks wouldn't ship for another 9 months. How was it a catastrophe? Was the network ever at risk? The use of hyperbole here is indicative of the lack of a serious argument.

They (innosilicon) have the only 14nm miner on the market, and as such they have the only rig capable of competing. Without competition, there is no price pressure, and it seems that there is close to, if not above, a 100% markup on their hardware. For every machine that gets sold, Innosilicon makes enough profit to produce a machine for themselves to mine.
--
The suggestion is that a highly competent manufacturer fairly competing to create the best possible solution is somehow in the wrong. It then goes on to suggest that gaining a financial reward for being highly competent is somehow wrong and further intimates the profits must be reinvested into working the Sia chain. In fact, Innosilicon didn't have an overly large hashrate until the discussion of a fork seemed inevitable. It seems reasonable they dumped the totality of their inventory online because they would not be able to sell them once a fork occurred. Arguing against capitalism and the freedom to earn profits is a dangerous slope, perhaps revealing underlying political motivations of the author.

For an ASIC that is going to obsolete existing hardware, margins can be anywhere from 50% to 100%. The story is different however for ASICs that intend to compete without being strong enough to become the new monopoly. For these machines, margins are likely to be less than 25% because the presence of competition heavily forces prices downwards.
--
The argument here is to somehow seek to fight Moore's Law. Just as GPUs defeated CPUs and ASICs defeated GPUs, the strongest ASICs will prevail. There are several manufacturers that can be sought out to compete if the result is a single dominant model. More importantly, Innosilicon sells the majority of it's mining rigs to decentralize the hashrate. A single dominant manufacturer does not guarantee or even make more likely the hashrate will centralize. Finally, seeking to protect less than competent or financially competitive manufacturers runs counter to much of the Satoshi manifesto.

When a manufacturer is also a miner, there is an incentive against manufacturing and selling more machines.
--
The Bitmain financials clearly show the company makes the overwhelming amount of their profitability on miner sales, not mining. This is likely true for nearly all coins as mining quickly becomes close to breakeven. Even the author later admits the margins on hardware make for a lucrative business model.

High manufacturer diversity is currently limited by the extreme barriers to entry...we like to see manufacturers that share the knowledge and encourage a vibrant competitive environment.
--
In no industry that I am aware of is sharing of proprietary knowledge common and especially not in highly competitive and extremely capital intensive industries. It's beyond naive to believe this should be a goal. The post continues with other hurdles that no rational enterprise would accept without some sort of regulatory framework. It cannot be fairly policed as we are seeing here. The author has made several statements based on conjecture and formulated a punishment with the entities having no rights of appeal or even an advance guideline to follow that would have avoided the issues.

For the Sia network, an important line was crossed when secret ASIC projects superseded a public project that had substantial community investment.
--
This may be accurate to the author but such a line was never laid out for the public and as such, crossing it cannot be penalized unjustly.

Sia did not fork initially because there was a lot of confusion, a lot of emotion, and a great fear that the heavy conflicts of interest would cause the development team to make the wrong decision. Since then, there has been time for emotions to cool, for level heads to prevail, and for a second community fork proposal to come forward. Unlike the first fork proposal by the community, this second proposal experienced widespread support and virtually no opposition at all from regular members of the community.
--
This is accurate in stating the Community Fork proposal enjoyed widespread support. it is totally off base in suggesting the Dev Fork even resembles the CF. This is using the community as a human shield due to the overwhelming lack of an argument. My guess is that the Dev Fork would not meet with anything near the kind of support the CF enjoyed.

Sia is forking today to reprimand the current ASIC monopoly for the damage it did to the Sia community, to make whole the supporters of Sia’s community ASIC project, and to send a clear message to all future Sia ASIC manufacturers: we will not tolerate an abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying there is one final boss at Sia and you made him mad to the point that he must now "reprimand" you. The items characterized as abusive were never outlined in advance and are highly debatable as to whether they actually are abusive, but again, Final Boss.

We fully expect that the 28nm Obelisk ASICs will be replaced by a 16nm chip from another manufacturer, who will become the new manufacturing monopoly for Sia... the Sia community is not afraid to take action a second time to break a parasitic or abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Hopefully any manufacturer understands the shifting sands that exist within the Sia leadership could decide virtually any action to be harmful as there has been zero harm done up to now. There have been no attacks, no overt centralization and plenty of supporters own/mine with these company's devices.

Sia is an ungoverned blockchain. There is no built-in mechanism on the Sia network to change the consensus rules, and there is no mechanism in the software that the developers can use to force people to upgrade. The only way that Nebulous can encourage a fork is to release new code, and then encourage people to upgrade.
This leaves people with the opportunity to reject the upgrade, and to instead continue using the old software and the old blockchain. If enough people rally around the old software, there could be a network split, and Sia could divide into two blockchains, in the same way that Ethereum split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and in the same way that Bitcoin became Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
At Nebulous, we view these cryptocurrency splits as one of the most powerful innovations of the blockchain space. Under traditional governance structures, a single decision gets made and everyone has to live with that decision. But when the network is able to split, you can get solutions where two groups of people with incompatible demands can both get what they want.
We will be structuring the Sia hardfork code to enable a group of dissenters to easily split off and be on a separate blockchain where the hardfork was never implemented. The hardfork will be released as its own release, v1.3.6, where the only code updated is a handful of lines of code + tests required to implement the hardfork. The code will be implemented in a way that easily allows a dissenting group to remove the hardfork code and yet continue merging changes that are made to the primary Sia repo. So long as the siafund ownership is maintained on this fork, members of the dissenting community will be welcome in the Sia community, on the Sia discord, on the subreddit, and will be able to receive support and help directly from the Nebulous support staff.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about a potential Sia network split is that all users will be able to continue to use their current files that they have on Sia. Uploads and downloads will continue to work, no matter what side of the split you are on, and so long as the minority side of the split has enough hosts (50–80 is what most users will require), the repair mechanisms of the Sia network will be able to repair your files from across both networks and ensure that your files continue working into the future. If the minority side of the fork does not have enough hosts, users will have time (most users will have several weeks) after the split to download their files and find an alternative way to back them up.
--
These paragraphs are simply amazing. The author appears to be goading people resistant to his iron control over the project to continue the legacy chain. While this makes sense if you are simply building a protocol and have no interest in marketing and selling the tech to say, Fortune 1000 companies, it is a terrible message if you do plan to. You are seeking community schism, making a competitive environment for hosting when hosting is already horribly unprofitable and seeking to sow chaos in how the network evolves into the future. The logical approach would be to let dedicated foes seek out the info on their own if there is a desire to work the legacy chain, not encourage it. It continues to show the author, while a strong technologist is a weak business individual.

we like to see is low margins for miners and manufacturers. When there are high margins, at least one player (the benefactor of the high margins) is able to acquire hashrate more cheaply than everyone else, and therefore is able to more easily attack the network.
--
What is the evidence and argument here? That people with more money are more able to attack? People with large trust funds are equally likely to be more able to attack. High profit margins simply indicate a competent agency, nothing more.

ASIC manufacturers ultimately exist to serve the network, and specifically to protect the network against 51% attacks.
--
ASIC manufacturers exist to serve their customers, full stop. They have no role or responsibility to the network at all. Increasing a circle of responsibility to an entity with no control over how their products are used is silly.

Overall, I am disappointed the team chose to ignore the Community Fork proposal in order to run their own fork. But, this is a Nebulous project and ultimately they can do whatever they want. They cannot assert decentralization though and very little about this current action suggests there is a long term goal of decentralization. Decisions to exclude some faction today will most certainly arise down the road as the team concludes that certain storage customers or developers or vendors are unacceptable for various reasons. This hasn't even discussed the awkward part of the equation where Obelisk is owned by the author and stands to gain now and in the future when more powerful, 2nd gen ASICs can be created and no outside manufacturers wanting to risk losing on the Sia project.

The point of the post is to attempt to continue to get Mr. Vorick to recognize the issues with his sole governance of the Sia project. Even the most ill-willed posts from various authors have a goal of improving the project. It is hoped that at some point, Vorick will recognize his project is stronger with community participation, even to the point of going along with community desires sometimes even if it runs counter to his own desires. There is value in learning to negotiate. You learn what to give away and what is sacrosanct. In the end, the project will grow much stronger and there will be copious numbers of supporters ready to do battle against the hyper-competitive world of cloud storage.
submitted by FaustianAGI to siacoin [link] [comments]

ASICBOOST isn't an efficiency gain

Lets take a few hypothetical scenarios:
All ASIC's move from 28nm tech to 16nm tech.
-More work is being done, therefore more security
ASICBOOST is released for free and all ASIC's adopt it
-Same amount of work is being done, security is the same
ASICBOOST is patented and only specific miners can use it
-Same amount of work is being done, but causes miner centralization.
 
Bitcoin's security is provided by work (proof of work). Actual work has to be done to increase security. "Shortcuts" do not increase security. ASICBOOST doesn't do more work, it lets you pretend that you did more than you actually did. It is not an efficiency gain, it is a shortcut. It is disenguous to compare it to other efficiency gains where more work was done.
The correct terminology to describe ASICBOOST is that it is a cryptographic attack.
 
Definition:
A cryptographic attack is a method for circumventing the security of a cryptographic system by finding a weakness in a code, cipher, cryptographic protocol or key management scheme.
 
The cryptographic attack used by ASICBOOST is colliding message blocks.
This same cryptographic attack, colliding message blocks, was used by Google in February 2017 to decrease the security of SHA-1 from 2128 to 261. This allows anyone with a powerful computer cluster to produce full hash collisions for SHA-1, completely breaking its security. This means that an attacker can produce two files with the same hash if they execute this attack and compute 261 operations.
 
More about the SHA-1 attack here:
http://shattered.io
This page contains two different files with the same SHA-1 hash proving that SHA-1 is not secure and cannot be used to verify the integrity of files.
Whitepaper on the colliding message block attack on SHA-1 that was used by Google:
http://shattered.io/static/shattered.pdf
 
ASICBOOST uses colliding message blocks to reduce the security of SHA-256 from 2256 to approximately 2255.48. In practice, this is negligible. However, if a new attack similar to ASICBOOST was revealed that reduced the security to somewhere in the order of 261, Bitcoin mining would be completely broken. It would be possible to mine a block, no matter the difficulty, with 261 operations, which is very achievable with today's technology.
 
Calling ASICBOOST an efficiency gain is very wrong.
Leaving cryptographic attacks unpatched sets a bad precedent that we don't care about these kinds of attacks. When a more serious cryptographic attack is found people will point to this one and say "why was that one allowed". It needs to be clear that we will patch any vulnerabilities on SHA-256
submitted by cowardlyalien to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

ActiveMining Official Update 21/01/2014

ActiveMining Official Update 21/01/2014 submitted by runderwo to BitcoinStocks [link] [comments]

Avalon might be getting a $200 million investment and 20nm technology to become the leader of the mining market

Avalon might be getting a $200 million investment and 20nm technology to become the leader of the mining market submitted by tntpie to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

AMD's Growing CPU Advantage Over Intel

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4152240-amds-growing-cpu-advantage-intel?page=1
AMD's Growing CPU Advantage Over Intel Mar. 1.18 | About: Advanced Micro (AMD)
Raymond Caron, Ph.D. Tech, solar, natural resources, energy (315 followers) Summary AMD's past and economic hazards. AMD's Current market conditions. AMD Zen CPU advantage over Intel. AMD is primarily a CPU fabrication company with much experience and a great history in that respect. They hold patents for 64-bit processing, as well as ARM based processing patents, and GPU architecture patents. AMD built a name for itself in the mid-to-late 90’s when they introduced the K-series CPU’s to good reviews followed by the Athlon series in ‘99. AMD was profitable, they bought the companies NexGen, Alchemy Semiconductor, and ATI. Past Economic Hazards If AMD has such a great history, then what happened? Before I go over the technical advantage that AMD has over Intel, it’s worth looking to see how AMD failed in the past, and to see if those hazards still present a risk to AMD. As for investment purposes we’re more interested in AMD’s turning a profit. AMD suffered from intermittent CPU fabrication problems, and was also the victim of sustained anti-competitive behaviour from Intel who interfered with AMD’s attempts to sell its CPU’s to the market through Sony, Hitachi, Toshiba, Fujitsu, NEC, Dell, Gateway, HP, Acer, and Lenovo. Intel was investigated and/or fined by multiple countries including Japan, Korea, USA, and EU. These hazard needs to be examined to see if history will repeat itself. There have been some rather large changes in the market since then.
1) The EU has shown they are not averse to leveling large fines, and Intel is still fighting the guilty verdict from the last EU fine levied against them; they’ve already lost one appeal. It’s conceivable to expect that the EU, and other countries, would prosecute Intel again. This is compounded by the recent security problems with Intel CPU’s and the fact that Intel sold these CPU’s under false advertising as secure when Intel knew they were not. Here are some of the largest fines dished out by the EU
2) The Internet has evolved from Web 1.0 to 2.0. Consumers are increasing their online presence each year. This reduces the clout that Intel can wield over the market as AMD can more easily sell to consumers through smaller Internet based companies.
3) Traditional distributors (HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc.) are struggling. All of these companies have had recent issues with declining revenue due to Internet competition, and ARM competition. These companies are struggling for sales and this reduces the clout that Intel has over them, as Intel is no longer able to ensure their future. It no longer pays to be in the club. These points are summarized in the graph below, from Statista, which shows “ODM Direct” sales and “other sales” increasing their market share from 2009 to Q3 2017. 4) AMD spun off Global Foundries as a separate company. AMD has a fabrication agreement with Global Foundries, but is also free to fabricate at another foundry such as TSMC, where AMD has recently announced they will be printing Vega at 7nm.
5) Global Foundries developed the capability to fabricate at 16nm, 14nm, and 12nm alongside Samsung, and IBM, and bought the process from IBM to fabricate at 7nm. These three companies have been cooperating to develop new fabrication nodes.
6) The computer market has grown much larger since the mid-90’s – 2006 when AMD last had a significant tangible advantage over Intel, as computer sales rose steadily until 2011 before starting a slow decline, see Statista graph below. The decline corresponds directly to the loss of competition in the marketplace between AMD and Intel, when AMD released the Bulldozer CPU in 2011. Tablets also became available starting in 2010 and contributed to the fall in computer sales which started falling in 2012. It’s important to note that computer shipments did not fall in 2017, they remained static, and AMD’s GPU market share rose in Q4 2017 at the expense of Nvidia and Intel.
7) In terms of fabrication, AMD has access to 7nm on Global Foundries as well as through TSMC. It’s unlikely that AMD will experience CPU fabrication problems in the future. This is something of a reversal of fortunes as Intel is now experiencing issues with its 10nm fabrication facilities which are behind schedule by more than 2 years, and maybe longer. It would be costly for Intel to use another foundry to print their CPU’s due to the overhead that their current foundries have on their bottom line. If Intel is unable to get the 10nm process working, they’re going to have difficulty competing with AMD. AMD: Current market conditions In 2011 AMD released its Bulldozer line of CPU’s to poor reviews and was relegated to selling on the discount market where sales margins are low. Since that time AMD’s profits have been largely determined by the performance of its GPU and Semi-Custom business. Analysts have become accustomed to looking at AMD’s revenue from a GPU perspective, which isn’t currently being seen in a positive light due to the relation between AMD GPU’s and cryptocurrency mining.
The market views cryptocurrency as further risk to AMD. When Bitcoin was introduced it was also mined with GPU’s. When the currency switched to ASIC circuits (a basic inexpensive and simple circuit) for increased profitability (ASIC’s are cheaper because they’re simple), the GPU’s purchased for mining were resold on the market and ended up competing with and hurting new AMD GPU sales. There is also perceived risk to AMD from Nvidia which has favorable reviews for its Pascal GPU offerings. While AMD has been selling GPU’s they haven’t increased GPU supply due to cryptocurrency demand, while Nvidia has. This resulted in a very high cost for AMD GPU’s relative to Nvidia’s. There are strategic reasons for AMD’s current position:
1) While the AMD GPU’s are profitable and greatly desired for cryptocurrency mining, AMD’s market access is through 3rd party resellers whom enjoy the revenue from marked-up GPU sales. AMD most likely makes lower margins on GPU sales relative to the Zen CPU sales due to higher fabrication costs associated with the fabrication of larger size dies and the corresponding lower yield. For reference I’ve included the size of AMD’s and Nvidia’s GPU’s as well as AMD’s Ryzen CPU and Intel’s Coffee lake 8th generation CPU. This suggests that if AMD had to pick and choose between products, they’d focus on Zen due higher yield and revenue from sales and an increase in margin.
2) If AMD maintained historical levels of GPU production in the face of cryptocurrency demand, while increasing production for Zen products, they would maximize potential income for highest margin products (EPYC), while reducing future vulnerability to second-hand GPU sales being resold on the market. 3) AMD was burned in the past from second hand GPU’s and want to avoid repeating that experience. AMD stated several times that the cryptocurrency boom was not factored into forward looking statements, meaning they haven’t produced more GPU’s to expect more GPU sales.
In contrast, Nvidia increased its production of GPU’s due to cryptocurrency demand, as AMD did in the past. Since their Pascal GPU has entered its 2nd year on the market and is capable of running video games for years to come (1080p and 4k gaming), Nvidia will be entering a position where they will be competing directly with older GPU’s used for mining, that are as capable as the cards Nvidia is currently selling. Second-hand GPU’s from mining are known to function very well, with only a need to replace the fan. This is because semiconductors work best in a steady state, as opposed to being turned on and off, so it will endure less wear when used 24/7.
The market is also pessimistic regarding AMD’s P/E ratio. The market is accustomed to evaluating stocks using the P/E ratio. This statistical test is not actually accurate in evaluating new companies, or companies going into or coming out of bankruptcy. It is more accurate in evaluating companies that have a consistent business operating trend over time.
“Similarly, a company with very low earnings now may command a very high P/E ratio even though it isn’t necessarily overvalued. The company may have just IPO’d and growth expectations are very high, or expectations remain high since the company dominates the technology in its space.” P/E Ratio: Problems With The P/E I regard the pessimism surrounding AMD stock due to GPU’s and past history as a positive trait, because the threat is minor. While AMD is experiencing competitive problems with its GPU’s in gaming AMD holds an advantage in Blockchain processing which stands to be a larger and more lucrative market. I also believe that AMD’s progress with Zen, particularly with EPYC and the recent Meltdown related security and performance issues with all Intel CPU offerings far outweigh any GPU turbulence. This turns the pessimism surrounding AMD regarding its GPU’s into a stock benefit. 1) A pessimistic group prevents the stock from becoming a bubble. -It provides a counter argument against hype relating to product launches that are not proven by earnings. Which is unfortunately a historical trend for AMD as they have had difficulty selling server CPU’s, and consumer CPU’s in the past due to market interference by Intel. 2) It creates predictable daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly fluctuations in the stock price that can be used, to generate income. 3) Due to recent product launches and market conditions (Zen architecture advantage, 12nm node launching, Meltdown performance flaw affecting all Intel CPU’s, Intel’s problems with 10nm) and the fact that AMD is once again selling a competitive product, AMD is making more money each quarter. Therefore the base price of AMD’s stock will rise with earnings, as we’re seeing. This is also a form of investment security, where perceived losses are returned over time, due to a stock that is in a long-term upward trajectory due to new products reaching a responsive market.
4) AMD remains a cheap stock. While it’s volatile it’s stuck in a long-term upward trend due to market conditions and new product launches. An investor can buy more stock (with a limited budget) to maximize earnings. This is advantage also means that the stock is more easily manipulated, as seen during the Q3 2017 ER.
5) The pessimism is unfounded. The cryptocurrency craze hasn’t died, it increased – fell – and recovered. The second hand market did not see an influx of mining GPU’s as mining remains profitable.
6) Blockchain is an emerging market, that will eclipse the gaming market in size due to the wide breath of applications across various industries. Vega is a highly desired product for Blockchain applications as AMD has retained a processing and performance advantage over Nvidia. There are more and rapidly growing applications for Blockchain every day, all (or most) of which will require GPU’s. For instance Microsoft, The Golem supercomputer, IBM, HP, Oracle, Red Hat, and others. Long-term upwards trend AMD is at the beginning of a long-term upward trend supported by a comprehensive and competitive product portfolio that is still being delivered to the market, AMD referred to this as product ramping. AMD’s most effective products with Zen is EPYC, and the Raven Ridge APU. EPYC entered the market in mid-December and was completely sold out by mid-January, but has since been restocked. Intel remains uncompetitive in that industry as their CPU offerings are retarded by a 40% performance flaw due to Meltdown patches. Server CPU sales command the highest margins for both Intel and AMD.
The AMD Raven Ridge APU was recently released to excellent reviews. The APU is significant due to high GPU prices driven buy cryptocurrency, and the fact that the APU is a CPU/GPU hybrid which has the performance to play games available today at 1080p. The APU also supports the Vulcan API, which can call upon multiple GPU’s to increase performance, so a system can be upgraded with an AMD or Nvidia GPU that supports Vulcan API at a later date for increased performance for those games or workloads that been programmed to support it. Or the APU can be replaced when the prices of GPU’s fall.
AMD also stands to benefit as Intel confirmed that their new 10 nm fabrication node is behind in technical capability relative to the Samsung, TSMC, and Global Foundries 7 nm fabrication process. This brings into questions Intel’s competitiveness in 2019 and beyond. Take-Away • AMD was uncompetitive with respect to CPU’s from 2011 to 2017 • When AMD was competitive, from 1996 to 2011 they did record profit and bought 3 companies including ATI. • AMD CPU business suffered from: • Market manipulation from Intel. • Intel fined by EU, Japan, Korea, and settled with the USA • Foundry productivity and upgrade complications • AMD has changed • Global Foundries spun off as an independent business • Has developed 14nm &12nm, and is implementing 7nm fabrication • Intel late on 10nm, is less competitive than 7nm node • AMD to fabricate products using multiple foundries (TSMC, Global Foundries) • The market has changed • More AMD products are available on the Internet and both the adoption of the Internet and the size of the Internet retail market has exploded, thanks to the success of smartphones and tablets. • Consumer habits have changed, more people shop online each year. Traditional retailers have lost market share. • Computer market is larger (on-average), but has been declining. While Computer shipments declined in Q2 and Q3 2017, AMD sold more CPU’s. • AMD was uncompetitive with respect to CPU’s from 2011 to 2017. • Analysts look to GPU and Semi-Custom sales for revenue. • Cryptocurrency boom intensified, no crash occurred. • AMD did not increase GPU production to meet cryptocurrency demand. • Blockchain represents a new growth potential for AMD GPU’s. • Pessimism acts as security against a stock bubble & corresponding bust. • Creates cyclical volatility in the stock that can be used to generate profit. • P/E ratio is misleading when used to evaluate AMD. • AMD has long-term growth potential. • 2017 AMD releases competitive product portfolio. • Since Zen was released in March 2017 AMD has beat ER expectations. • AMD returns to profitability in 2017. • AMD taking measureable market share from Intel in OEM CPU Desktop and in CPU market. • High margin server product EPYC released in December 2017 before worst ever CPU security bug found in Intel CPU’s that are hit with detrimental 40% performance patch. • Ryzen APU (Raven Ridge) announced in February 2018, to meet gaming GPU shortage created by high GPU demand for cryptocurrency mining. • Blockchain is a long-term growth opportunity for AMD. • Intel is behind the competition for the next CPU fabrication node. AMD’s growing CPU advantage over Intel About AMD’s Zen Zen is a technical breakthrough in CPU architecture because it’s a modular design and because it is a small CPU while providing similar or better performance than the Intel competition.
Since Zen was released in March 2017, we’ve seen AMD go from 18% CPU market share in the OEM consumer desktops to essentially 50% market share, this was also supported by comments from Lisa Su during the Q3 2017 ER call, by MindFactory.de, and by Amazon sales of CPU’s. We also saw AMD increase its market share of total desktop CPU’s. We also started seeing market share flux between AMD and Intel as new CPU’s are released. Zen is a technical breakthrough supported by a few general guidelines relating to electronics. This provides AMD with an across the board CPU market advantage over Intel for every CPU market addressed.
1) The larger the CPU the lower the yield. - Zen architecture that makes up Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC is smaller (44 mm2 compared to 151 mm2 for Coffee Lake). A larger CPU means fewer CPU’s made during fabrication per wafer. AMD will have roughly 3x the fabrication yield for each Zen printed compared to each Coffee Lake printed, therefore each CPU has a much lower cost of manufacturing.
2) The larger the CPU the harder it is to fabricate without errors. - The chance that a CPU will be perfectly fabricated falls exponentially with increasing surface area. Intel will have fewer high quality CPU’s printed compared to AMD. This means that AMD will make a higher margin on each CPU sold. AMD’s supply of perfect printed Ryzen’s (1800X) are so high that the company had to give them away at a reduced cost in order to meet supply demands for the cheaper Ryzen 5 1600X. If you bought a 1600X in August/September, you probably ended up with an 1800X.
3) Larger CPU’s are harder to fabricate without errors on smaller nodes. -The technical capability to fabricate CPU’s at smaller nodes becomes more difficult due to the higher precision that is required to fabricate at a smaller node, and due to the corresponding increase in errors. “A second reason for the slowdown is that it’s simply getting harder to design, inspect and test chips at advanced nodes. Physical effects such as heat, electrostatic discharge and electromagnetic interference are more pronounced at 7nm than at 28nm. It also takes more power to drive signals through skinny wires, and circuits are more sensitive to test and inspection, as well as to thermal migration across a chip. All of that needs to be accounted for and simulated using multi-physics simulation, emulation and prototyping.“ Is 7nm The Last Major Node? “Simply put, the first generation of 10nm requires small processors to ensure high yields. Intel seems to be putting the smaller die sizes (i.e. anything under 15W for a laptop) into the 10nm Cannon Lake bucket, while the larger 35W+ chips will be on 14++ Coffee Lake, a tried and tested sub-node for larger CPUs. While the desktop sits on 14++ for a bit longer, it gives time for Intel to further develop their 10nm fabrication abilities, leading to their 10+ process for larger chips by working their other large chip segments (FPGA, MIC) first.” There are plenty of steps where errors can be created within a fabricated CPU. This is most likely the culprit behind Intel’s inability to launch its 10nm fabrication process. They’re simply unable to print such a large CPU on such a small node with high enough yields to make the process competitive. Intel thought they were ahead of the competition with respect to printing large CPU’s on a small node, until AMD avoided the issue completely by designing a smaller modular CPU. Intel avoided any mention of its 10nm node during its Q4 2017 ER, which I interpret as bad news for Intel shareholders. If you have nothing good to say, then you don’t say anything. Intel having nothing to say about something that is fundamentally critical to its success as a company can’t be good. Intel is on track however to deliver hybrid CPU’s where some small components are printed on 10nm. It’s recently also come to light that Intel’s 10nm node is less competitive than the Global Foundries, Samsung, and TSMC 7nm nodes, which means that Intel is now firmly behind in CPU fabrication. 4) AMD Zen is a new architecture built from the ground up. Intel’s CPU’s are built on-top of older architecture developed with 30-yr old strategies, some of which we’ve recently discovered are flawed. This resulted in the Meltdown flaw, the Spectre flaws, and also includes the ME, and AMT bugs in Intel CPU’s. While AMD is still affected by Spectre, AMD has only ever acknowledged that they’re completely susceptible to Spectre 1, as AMD considers Spectre 2 to be difficult to exploit on an AMD Zen CPU. “It is much more difficult on all AMD CPUs, because BTB entries are not aliased - the attacker must know (and be able to execute arbitrary code at) the exact address of the targeted branch instruction.” Technical Analysis of Spectre & Meltdown * Amd Further reading Spectre and Meltdown: Linux creator Linus Torvalds criticises Intel's 'garbage' patches | ZDNet FYI: Processor bugs are everywhere - just ask Intel and AMD Meltdown and Spectre: Good news for AMD users, (more) bad news for Intel Cybersecurity agency: The only sure defense against huge chip flaw is a new chip Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign Take-Away • AMD Zen enjoys a CPU fabrication yield advantage over Intel • AMD Zen enjoys higher yield of high quality CPU’s • Intel’s CPU’s are affected with 40% performance drop due to Meltdown flaw that affect server CPU sales.
AMD stock drivers 1) EPYC • -A critically acclaimed CPU that is sold at a discount compared to Intel. • -Is not affected by 40% software slow-downs due to Meltdown. 2) Raven Ridge desktop APU • - Targets unfed GPU market which has been stifled due to cryptocurrency demand - Customers can upgrade to a new CPU or add a GPU at a later date without changing the motherboard. • - AM4 motherboard supported until 2020. 3) Vega GPU sales to Intel for 8th generation CPU’s with integrated graphics. • - AMD gains access to the complete desktop and mobile market through Intel.
4) Mobile Ryzen APU sales • -Providing gaming capability in a compact power envelope.
5) Ryzen and Threadripper sales • -Fabricated on 12nm in April. • -May eliminate Intel’s last remaining CPU advantage in IPC single core processing. • -AM4 motherboard supported until 2020. • -7nm Ryzen on track for early 2019. 6) Others: Vega, Polaris, Semi-custom, etc. • -I consider any positive developments here to be gravy. Conclusion While in the past Intel interfered with AMD's ability to bring it's products to market, the market has changed. The internet has grown significantly and is now a large market that dominates when in computer sales. It's questionable if Intel still has the influence to affect this new market, and doing so would most certainly result in fines and further bad press.
AMD's foundry problems were turned into an advantage over Intel.
AMD's more recent past was heavily influenced by the failure of the Bulldozer line of CPU's that dragged on AMD's bottom line from 2011 to 2017.
AMD's Zen line of CPU's is a breakthrough that exploits an alternative, superior strategy, in chip design which results in a smaller CPU. A smaller CPU enjoys compounded yield and quality advantages over Intel's CPU architecture. Intel's lead in CPU performance will at the very least be challenged and will more likely come to an end in 2018, until they release a redesigned CPU.
I previously targeted AMD to be worth $20 by the end of Q4 2017 ER. This was based on the speed that Intel was able to get products to market, in comparison AMD is much slower. I believe the stock should be there, but the GPU related story was prominent due to cryptocurrency craze. Financial analysts need more time to catch on to what’s happening with AMD, they need an ER that is driven by CPU sales. I believe that the Q1 2018 is the ER to do that. AMD had EPYC stock in stores when the Meltdown and Spectre flaws hit the news. These CPU’s were sold out by mid-January and are large margin sales.
There are many variables at play within the market, however barring any disruptions I’d expect that AMD will be worth $20 at some point in 2018 due these market drivers. If AMD sold enough EPYC CPU’s due to Intel’s ongoing CPU security problems, then it may occur following the ER in Q1 2018. However, if anything is customary with AMD, it’s that these things always take longer than expected.
submitted by kchia124 to AMD_Stock [link] [comments]

Updated FAQs for newcomers

TL:DR: Don't bother mining if you want to get rich yo. You're way too late to the party.
Welcome to the exciting and often stressful world of bitcoin! You are wondering what looks like a once in a lifetime opportunity to get rich quick. Of course you guys probably heard about this "mining" process but what is this?
Simply put, a bitcoin mining machine that performs complicated calculations and when deemed correct by the network, receives a block which contains 25 bitcoins (XBT). This is how bitcoins are generated. So your brain instantly thinks, "Holy shit, how can I get on this gold rush?"
Before you proceed further, I would like to explain the concept of mining further. Bitcoin is limited 21m in circulation. It is coded to release a certain number of blocks at a certain time frame, ie: this year the network will release close to 500,000 bitcoins. What this means is that the more people (or specifically the amount of mining power) mine, the less each person gets. The network tries to keep to this time frame through the process of difficulty adjustments which makes the calculations harder and this happens every 2 weeks. So every 2 weeks, you get less bitcoins with the same hash rate (mining power) based on what the difficulty changes are. Recently, the changes have been pretty staggering, jumping 226% in 2 months. You can see the difficulty changes here.
Now, why are these changes so large?
A bit of a simple history. Bitcoin's algorithm runs on SHA-256. This algorithm can be solved using many hardware, from CPU to GPU and dedicated hardware (Application Specific Integrated Circuits). When bitcoin first started, mining on CPU was a trivial process, you can pretty much earn 50 XBT (the block size then) every few hours between Q1 and Q2 of 2010.
In late 2010, due to the difficulty increase that is reducing the effectiveness of CPU mining, people started to harness GPU mining. Only AMD GPU's architecture design are better optimized for bitcoin mining so this is what the community used. Immediate improvements of more than 10x was not uncommon.
In time of course, GPUs reached their limit and people started to build dedicated. In the same vein as the CPU to GPU transition, similar performance increase was common. These ASICs can only perform SHA-256 calculation so they can be highly optimized. Their performance mainly depends on the die size of the chips exactly like CPU chips.
In general, think of bitcoin mining's technological advancement no different to mining gold. Gold panning (CPUs) vs pickaxes (GPUs) vs machinery (ASICs) and we are still in the ASIC mining race.
ASIC mining started with ASICMiner and Avalon being first to the market, both producing 130nm and 110nm chips. The technology are antiquated in comparison to CPUs and GPUs which are now 22nm with 14nm slated for Q1 next year by Intel but they are cheap to manufacture and with performance gains similar to the CPU to GPU transition, they were highly successful and popular for early adopters. At that point in time since there were less competing manufacturers and the low batch runs of their products, miners became really rich due to the slow increase in difficulty.
The good days came to an end mid August with an unprecedented 35% increase in difficulty. This is due to existing manufacturers selling more hardware and many other players coming onto the market with better hardware (smaller die). Since die shrinking knowledge and manufacturing process are well known along with a large technological gap (110nm vs 22nm), you get an arms race. Current ASIC makers are closing in on our technological limit and until everyone catches up, the difficulty jumps will be high because it is just too easy to get a performance increase. Most newer products run at 28nm and most chips are not well optimized, so it will be around another 6 to 9 months before we see hit a hard plateau with 22nm or 14nm chips. The estimated time frame is because manufacturing chips at 22nm or 14nm is a more difficult and expensive task. In the meantime most manufacturers will probably settle at 28nm and we will reach a soft plateau in about 3 months.
Now, you might ask these questions and should have them answered and if you have not thought about them at all, then you probably should not touch bitcoin until you understand cause you are highly unprepared and probably lose lots of money.
No. If you have to ask, please do not touch bitcoin yet. You will spend more on electricity cost than mining any substantial bitcoin. Seriously. At all. A 7990 would produce a pitiful 0.02879 XBT (USD $14 @ $500/XBT exchange rate) for the next 30 days starting 23 Nov 2013 at 35% difficulty increase.
And if you think you can mine on your laptop either on a CPU or GPU, you are probably going to melt it before you even get 0.01 XBT.
Probably not because you probably forgot that GPUs and CPUs produce a ton of heat and noise. You can try but I see no point earning < $20 bucks per month.
No, because your machine will probably not mine as much as buying bitcoins. This situation is called the opportunity cost. While you can still make money if XBT rise in value, it is a fallacy.
IE: if you start mining on 1 Dec 2013, a KnC Jupiter running at 450Gh/sec (KnC lies as not all chips run at 550Gh/sec) will yield you a total revenue of 9.5189 XBT with a profit of 0.7859 XBT in profit by 30th Jan 2014 at a constant difficulty increase of 35%. The opportunity cost is: 8.5910 XBT @ USD $580/XBT with USD $5,000 which is the cost of a KnC Jupiter. This is the best you can earn and it's a bloody optimistic assumption because:
The only circumstances where you will earn money is when XBT exchange rates is so high that it makes the opportunity cost pales in comparison. Unfortunately this is not the case. If XBT stabilized at 900/XBT today (20 Nov 2013) then we might have a good case.
The risk is just generally not worth it. Unless you have at least a hundred thousand and can make a contract with a manufacturer for a lower cost, do not bother. Just wait until the arms race is over then you can start mining.
Okay, go buy an AsicMiner USB Block Erupter. They are cheap and pretty fun to have.
Sure, just read the answer below on who NOT to go for. You are doing bitcoin a service by securing the network and you have our (the users') gratitude.
You can check out the manufacturers and their products below along with a calculator here.
If you still insist on buying, do not to go for BFL. Their track record is horrid and borderline scammish. KnC fucked up a lot with defective boards and chips. Personally, I think CoinTerra is the best choice.
Alternatively, you can go on the secondary market to buy a delivered product. You can get a better deal there if you know how to do your "return on investment (ROI)" calculation. Personally, I will go for a 45%-50% difficulty increase for the next 3 months for my calculations and a 2% pool fee.
However, most products on ebay are sold at a cost much higher than it should. bitcointalk.org is a cheaper place because everyone knows what are the true value is so you will find less options. If you are unclear or need assistance, please post a question.
I actually do not use any of the pools recommended to the left because I think they lack features.
My favourite is Bitminter (Variable fees based on features used; max 2%). It has all advanced features for a pool, very responsive and helpful owner on IRC. Variable fees is good for those who do not need a large feature set, even with all features turned on, it is still cheap.
Eligius (0% fees) has high value for money but lacks features. It has anonymous mining which might be attractive to certain subset of people but not for others. Many other community member and I disagree highly with the opinions of the owner on the direction of bitcoin. I do use his pool for now but I do so only because I share my miners with a few partners and anonymous mining allows us to monitor the machines without using an account. Bitminter uses only OpenID which is problematic for me.
BTC Guild (3% fees) is another big pool and is fully featured and does charge a premium for their fees. That said, they are the most stable of the lot. I do use them but do so only because my hoster uses them for monitoring. I try not to use them because a pool with a very large hash rate (they are the largest) presents a large vulnerability to bitcoin's network if compromised.
All of them pay out transaction fees.
submitted by Coz131 to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

An Insiders Take on CoinTerra & the Bitcoin Mining Sector

Having been involved in Bitcoin since 2011 and on the inside of one of the 28nm Bitcoin mining contestants for the past two months, here is my story.
Feel free to skip the long intro to skip to the present: I added it because people might want to know where I'm coming from.
My elevator pitch is that I discovered Bitcoin in 2011 while traveling in Argentina, and after doing research I started recommending it as an investment to the subscribers of my financial newsletter in early 2012. BTC was $5 back then, so we did well with that.
Here are some links of the things that I've done in Bitcoin:
"Bitcoin seen through the eyes of a central banker"
Interview Keiser Report about Bitcoin, ECB & Argentina
"Why you should invest in Bitcoin"
"Cryptocurrency is the future of money, banking, and finance"
Since the beginning I've been thinking a lot about how I wanted to invest in Bitcoin. It has always made plain sense to me to begin with buying coins, as it is like an ETF on the entire Bitcoin economy.
However, in early 2012, just the idea of buying bitcoins was a pretty scary prospect. I consulted with two core developers who actually tried to dissuade me from looking at Bitcoin as an investment. One said it was still very much an experiment, the other said (correctly so) that there were still substantial security risks.
Eventually it was my experience in Argentina's difficult economy (rife with currency crackdowns and capital controls) that convinced me to take the leap - I decided that there was enough demand and enthusiasm for financial freedom in the world. Enough for some crazy people to keep funneling resources into Bitcoin, resources that would support the idealist hackers and maverick entrepreneurs to make the technology of cryptocurrency a success.
So I started buying bitcoins, considering myself lucky because my friends in Latin America had it much tougher: they had to mine most of their cryptocurrency in their basement with graphic cards because of the harsh capital controls that prevented them from sending money abroad and buying them on an exchange.
In all, 2012 was a difficult year for Bitcoin. The 'old' bitcoiners were still psychologically numbed from the huge decline in price, and the newbees were continually scared by new scandals: the Bitcoinica thefts in May and July, the BTC Savings and Trust-ponzi implosion in August, and the Bitfloor theft in September. The price of Bitcoin hovered between $5 and $13 all year, the mainstream media ignored or at best scorned Bitcoin, and I for one was mostly happy to still have an unscathed wallet.
Throughout the year I wrote about Bitcoin practically every week in my email updates and every month in my printed investment newsletter. It was often a frustrating job, because my many of my subscribers are babyboomers or from an older generation who don't intuitively grasp the concepts of peer-to-peer, open source, online, etc. I received a good number of emails accusing me of promoting a ponzi scheme, and my publisher (who does all the promotion for the newsletter) was very sceptical and tried to persuade me to write less about Bitcoin and more about traditional investments like gold and stocks.
I think this tension/struggle is part of what prevented me from exploring the investable side of the Bitcoin economy for quite a while, although I did buy a few Bitcoin mining stocks on the GLBSE. (Compliments to the miners that kept paying out dividends even after the wild ending of this stock exchange - COGNITIVE is one of them)
Attending the Bitcoin London conference organized by Amir Taaki in late 2012 was definitely a turning point for me. Cryptocurrency suddenly became tangible and real, and I think that was the case for many people there.
During Amir's conference, I made friends with Jim from MultiBit and Nejc from BitStamp. I likely missed an investment opportunity with BitPay (even though Tony Galippi was just as impressive back then as he is now), and I tried to persuade GLBSE's Nefario to start talking to a lawyer about the legal risks of running a Bitcoin denominated exchange. Josh from Butterfly Labs made an announcement there in London, and that was my first experience with the excitement and controversy that characterizes so much of the Bitcoin mining industry today.
Meanwhile my investment newsletter kept doing well, and I decided to make a move to South America to expand my horizon. That's how it happened that I was with my friends in Buenos Aires when the March-April 2013 explosion in price happened: an exhilarating time, and I'm still grateful for their long term Bitcoin experience which helped me make the right decisions for myself during this period.
Still I kept thinking about how I could invest some of my gains back in the Bitcoin economy. Chasing a dollar profit doesn't make sense to me, so I had to identify business models that gave perspective for making a multiple on my bitcoins.
Bitcoin mining felt like an interesting fit, for several reasons.
First, I spent the past few years studying the gold mining industry and the parallels and differences with Bitcoin mining are absolutely fascinating to me.
Next, in the short run I am not at ease regarding the authorities ability to attack or destabilize the BTC network. Many will object by saying that the Bitcoin network has a hashrate that's currently 40 times faster than top 500 supercomputers combined. However, that is misleading because the equation would change dramatically if those computers were equipped with specialized ASICs that can be produced for a couple of million dollars.
This is what Jim Rickards referred to when he said "technologists don't understand the world of power politics and malicious actors: there are people who don't care about the cost. (…) If they want to destroy a system, and they have to pay to do it, they'll do it. It's not necessarily more expensive than buying an aircraft carrier or building a submarine."
This is the reason why I think it's crucial to push up the network speed as close to the physical limits as possible. Once the miners are working on the smallest node and with the most efficient chip possible, it will be much more difficult for a malicious entity to do a 51% attack on the network.
(By the way, much respect to the small bitcoiners and basement miners for this: they are the ones that have been bankrolling the expensive development of ever more sophisticated ASIC chips. They are the ones that are slowly turning the once brittle skeleton of the Bitcoin network into an indestructible Adamantium shield.)
Finally, it seemed obvious to me that the Bitcoin mining market was about to enter a consolidation phase, in which the market would increasingly sponsor the more reliable and technically gifted chip producers, which will eventually create a more stable environment for everyone. How exciting, to try and witness from the first row how an entirely new industry grows from childhood/adolescence towards maturity!
Enter CoinTerra.
I first met Ravi Iyengar and his team members at the San Jose Bitcoin conference, where they pitched for an angel investment in their company. I was immediately impressed by their passion, technical pedigree, and understanding of the workings of Bitcoin.
I was definitely intrigued and after the conference we kept the communication lines open. Back in Belgium I met with two interested angels who happened to be Belgian, too. I then talked to different people with hardware backgrounds to verify whether Ravi's team really was that good judging by the industry standards. They were.
I started getting excited.
From there on, things began moving fast. The two Belgians got in and the more I talked to Ravi, the more I was impressed with his cogent reasoning, his decisiveness, and the speed by which he absorbs large amounts of new information. By mid July I finally made the decision to also come in as the third angel investor in CoinTerra.
When I talked about the company to Timo Hanke (German cryptographer and author of the Bitcoin Pay-to-Contract protocol) he was intrigued, did his own due dilligence, and soon after became an investor in, and later a team member of CoinTerra.
Other investors and advisors that came in on the angel round had reputable backgrounds in the software and hardware industries, precious metals, telecom, and law - all of whom shared a great and genuine passion for Bitcoin. I began feeling very fortunate to be able to follow this project from such a close perspective.
After some days, because of Ravi's high energy and magnetic enthusiasm, the following turned into involvement. When I was invited to come to Austin, Texas to help out, I jumped in with both feet - I've been here for a week now.
One thing I noticed when getting involved with CoinTerra more closely, is that the communications part of the equation needed improving. I can understand how the issue came to be. Ravi is in the first place an engineer and a team leader, and he started structuring his company from that same perspective. Even today most of his focus is directed to closely managing all the engineers (in Austin, in Raleigh, and also in India) to make sure that the risks involved are managed to the greatest possible extent.
The engineering roots of CoinTerra are also reflected in the initial vision behind the company: to build large and efficient mining data centers, deploy them worldwide, and to then offer cloud hashing services to the public. However, the still uncertain legal repercussions of that lead to a change in strategy. Instead, CoinTerra is now working on providing chips and rigs for the general public, and leaves it for the customers to decide where and how to mine with them.
Now, I understand and appreciate how very skeptical a large part of the Bitcoin mining community has become. People have invested a lot of resources in brave but often very inexperienced teams who have not always been able to deliver on their promises. It has been a road of trial and error, and the errors of some have proven painful to many.
I can say that I understand what it means to have skin in the game of the mining market; I am an investor in a company that has announced but not released a manufactured product on the market yet. And I stand by it: I think CoinTerra is working on fantastic products and has great future potential as a company. Would I like to make a return on my investment? Of course, that will be the best proof that it fulfills the potential that I see in Ravi and his team.
That said, even to just be involved in this technological arms race that is taking place in Bitcoin mining, where hyper competitive capitalism is miraculously creating a very pure public good, is a real privilege. I think the sector will further mature and that we will see more and more reliable companies emerge over time, and all the while the Bitcoin network will grow stronger and stronger.
I'm happy to take questions if you are interested.
Best wishes,
Tuur
submitted by dtuur to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

ASICBOOST isn't an efficiency gain

Lets take a few hypothetical scenarios:
All ASIC's move from 28nm tech to 16nm tech.
-More work is being done, therefore more security
ASICBOOST is released for free and all ASIC's adopt it
-Same amount of work is being done, security is the same
ASICBOOST is patented and only specific miners can use it
-Same amount of work is being done, but causes miner centralization.
 
Bitcoin's security is provided by work (proof of work). Actual work has to be done to increase security. "Shortcuts" do not increase security. ASICBOOST doesn't do more work, it lets you pretend that you did more than you actually did. It is not an efficiency gain, it is a shortcut. It is disenguous to compare it to other efficiency gains where more work was done.
The correct terminology to describe ASICBOOST is that it is a cryptographic attack.
 
Definition:
A cryptographic attack is a method for circumventing the security of a cryptographic system by finding a weakness in a code, cipher, cryptographic protocol or key management scheme.
 
The cryptographic attack used by ASICBOOST is colliding message blocks.
This same cryptographic attack, colliding message blocks, was used by Google in February 2017 to decrease the security of SHA-1 from 2128 to 261. This allows anyone with a powerful computer cluster to produce full hash collisions for SHA-1, completely breaking its security. This means that an attacker can produce two files with the same hash if they execute this attack and compute 261 operations.
 
More about the SHA-1 attack here:
http://shattered.io
This page contains two different files with the same SHA-1 hash proving that SHA-1 is not secure and cannot be used to verify the integrity of files.
Whitepaper on the colliding message block attack on SHA-1 that was used by Google:
http://shattered.io/static/shattered.pdf
 
ASICBOOST uses colliding message blocks to reduce the security of SHA-256 from 2256 to approximately 2255.48. In practice, this is negligible. However, if a new attack similar to ASICBOOST was revealed that reduced the security to somewhere in the order of 261, Bitcoin mining would be completely broken. It would be possible to mine a block, no matter the difficulty, with 261 operations, which is very achievable with today's technology.
 
Calling ASICBOOST an efficiency gain is very wrong.
Leaving cryptographic attacks unpatched sets a bad precedent that we don't care about these kinds of attacks. When a more serious cryptographic attack is found people will point to this one and say "why was that one allowed". It needs to be clear that we will patch any vulnerabilities on SHA-256
submitted by cowardlyalien to btc [link] [comments]

My friend got me into mining but I have questions

Currently, I'm only hashing about 15kh/s, which is pretty weak compared to what I've seen on the dogecoin subs. I'm using the onboard AMD Radeon A8 GPU which has dual graphics technology. For gaming, it's a pretty solid GPU so I was shocked to see my hash speed so low.
I've been looking into the Fury, but based on what I've read, the cost of the Fury + electricity bills, mining isn't worth it.
I've come to a fork in the road and I'm looking for some advice from experienced doge users/miners. Do I drop money on a Fury, a graphics card, or is there another way?
submitted by StarkCommando to dogemining [link] [comments]

Now offering A2 Terminator 76 mh/s ASIC scrypt miner on TransHash.com (not a pre-order)

This extremely powerful miner with 48-A2 28nm ASIC chips achieves 76 Mh/s (86 Mh/s in Turbo mode), while only drawing about 400-480 watts of power. It will exponentially increase the power of your mining rig, while also enabling you to contribute to securing the Litecoin network, and that of any other scrypt-based cryptocurrency you choose to mine, a task that is going to require substantial computing power going forward.
This is the first miner TransHash is offering (through a wholesale arrangement with an authorized distributor), and we realize ASIC mining of scrypt-based cryptocurrencies like litecoin is a controversial issue. We know that the conversation about its pros and cons should and will continue, and we hope that we can contribute in some way to it. We also hope you will take a look at this miner and offer your feedback on this product and/or the TransHash website. As an online retailer dedicated to serving users of digital currencies, TransHash only accepts litecoin, bitcoin, and dogecoin. http://www.transhash.com/product/76-mhs-28nm-scrypt-asic-miner
We will start the shipping process after payment processing (this could take a few days). Machines ship from our distributor or manufacturer. Shipping times will vary depending on distances.
** UPDATE: We appreciate all of the feedback we've received here and elsewhere about this product. As a result of the feedback, we have reduced the price of the A2 Terminator Scrypt ASIC miner to $12,000. Also, our distributor says that they will be making a video of the miner running this weekend for TransHash to post for our customers. Again, we appreciate all your input and look forward to continuing to hear from you.
submitted by TransHash to litecoin [link] [comments]

KNCminer to release 350 GH/s in September

Everyone,
A lot has happened in the last few weeks, so we thought it was time for a new update. The main focus of this newsletter will be around the following topics:
Jupiter’s performance increase. A new product called Saturn. More information on our approach to Litecoin mining devices. Things we are working on in the next few weeks. Update of Jupiter performance https://www.kncminer.com/products/jupiter We have previously announced that Jupiter will have a minimum performance of 250GH/s. We can now be a little more accurate and say that it will be above 350GH/s. A few improvements have allowed this to happen. One of them is that we are now able to use the 28nm technology in our standard ASIC design.
Delivery is also important to our customers so we can also narrow down from saying autumn to the latter part of September 2013. This is still a compressed timeline but we are very confident we can meet our deadline. (Which in terms of Standard cell ASIC design is a very aggressive time frame.) We are able to commit to this deadline because of the experience that ORSoC brings.
The last update around Jupiter is the price. We previously stated that it would be between 7000 and 8000 USD per device. The final component costs are all in and we can confirm that the price will be 6995 USD.
So to recap. Jupiter now comes with:
350 GH/s. 28nm Standard Cell ASIC chips. Shipment in September 2013. 6995 USD price tag. Announcement of Saturn https://www.kncminer.com/products/saturn We have had many people asking for a cheaper ASIC device, which would still give great value for money in terms of hashes per dollar.
So we have listened. We have created Saturn, Saturn is a 4 blade device. (Jupiter is an 8 blade device) Saturn still offers great value in terms of hash per dollar, but has a much more favorable purchase price of 3795 USD. It will have a minimum performance of 175 GH/s and because it’s based on the same modular design as Jupiter, they will ship alongside each other in September 2013.
So to recap on Saturn:
175 GH/s. 28nm Standard Cell ASIC chips. Shipment in September 2013. 3795 USD price tag.
Litecoin device A common request arriving on our desks is around us producing a Litecoin mining device. We have stated that we are looking into it, to see if we can develop a device that would make sense for the Litecoin community. What we would like to say at this stage is that we are removing things form our plate which in any way delay the shipment of our ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, having said that if we have any space in our resources. (Which we may increase in the near future) They are being targeted at producing a Litecoin device. So as of today it’s on the plan but is second only to the ASIC Bitcoin devices. We will continue to conduct research into Litecoin devices and see exactly how challenging it would be to produce an FPGA type setup for mining Litecoins.
The coming weeks Next week we will have a demo video of our Mars device uploaded for everyone to see. So at this point we would like to invite the community to select people to come to our offices. Those people would be able to meet the engineering team and have a look at our prototype. If you would like an invite please send us an email. We will try to accommodate as many people as we can.
Above all we would like to say thanks again for all of your feedback. Keep it coming it allows us to produce better and more targeted products.
KnCMiner Team
submitted by chaxattack to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Lohnt sich ASIC Bitcoin Mining in Deutschland? März 2018 How To Start [ASIC Bitcoin Mining] AntMiner S5 ~1155Gh s @ 0.51W Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner LIGHTINGASIC 28NM 85MHS SCRYPT MINER REAL SHOW2 AntMiner S4 ~2000Gh s @ 0 69W Gh 28nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner

Posts Tagged ‘28nm SF3301 ASIC ... are progressing well as the company has just released some documents including a datasheet for their upcoming SF3301 Bitcoin and Litecoin dual-mining ASIC chips. The documents include a preliminary power usage report on expected power usage in LTC and BTC mining modes that you can see on the image above. The numbers released in the above tables are higher ... Bitcoin mining giant BitFury has announced it has completed the manufacturing of its anticipated 28nm ASIC chip. BitFury first revealed the development of the chip in the fall of last year, at the ... Posts Tagged ‘28nm Bitcoin ASIC ... BM1382 will bring the power efficiency of Bitcoin mining industry to a new level which has not been massively achieved before. BM1382 represents a 20% power saving on its previous generation of 55nm chips and nearly 10 times of better physical densification, which will further improve the safety of the decentralized ecosystem. BitMain BM1382 chip ... In addition to a Bitcoin mining ASIC, you’ll need some other Bitcoin mining equipment: ... The S7 is powered by a 28nm BM1385 ASIC chip. 135 of these chips are spread across 3 boards and kept cool by dual fans (or a single fan in the case of a particular batch). The strong metal casing features a tongue and groove system which allows for the neat arrangement of multiple miners. Power Supply ... 2,3 t Bitcoin Mining Rig Machine Dragon Miner mit 28-nm-Asic-Chips von Coincraft: Amazon.de: Computer & Tablets . Der SP20 verbindet sich nur über Ethernet. Wenn dies der Fall ist, ist es jetzt möglicherweise der richtige Zeitpunkt, ein Paar zu kaufen. Der bekannte „Miner Digi“ Youtuber veröffentlichte am 11. April 2020 eine Videodemonstration auf dem Halong-Rig. Als Motivation für das ...

[index] [5525] [16332] [4374] [46686] [19457] [2614] [5082] [1199] [3759] [28236]

Lohnt sich ASIC Bitcoin Mining in Deutschland? März 2018

Go To http://bit.ly/147hDDX Bitmain's 3rd generation Bitcoin mining ASIC, the BM1384 provides significant improvements over the previous BM1382 chip. Hashrat... BFGMiner on Windows Setup Guide for Bitcoin Users + ASIC Miner Setup Bitcoin Weekly Show - Duration: 6:54. cxboy 83,606 views. 6:54. Getting Started with Open Broadcaster Software OBS - Duration ... Im heutigen Video erkläre ich euch, warum ein ASIC Miner wie der Antminer S9 von Bitmain nur eingeschränkt profitabel ist und sich nur mit sehr niedrigen Stromkosten lohnen würde. Word 1st 28NM Scrypt miner, Factory products, bring by Lightningasic. 722 GH/s - HashFast's Golden Nonce has met it's match! See our GN 28nm ASIC on the new Yoli Evo Mining Board!!!

#