bitcoin miner

A 14-year-old's experience with Bitcoin

First-time poster here, don’t bully me, apologies for the potentially atrocious formatting :) TL;DR at the end
So in the wake of Bitcoin’s explosive rise in value and media attention, I’ve been encouraged by others to share my experience over the past few years as a miner. Here's my story (it's kinda long, you've been warned)

Humble Beginnings

It all started almost three years ago in the beginning of 2015 when Bitcoin flew under my radar. Looking into it, I admittedly wasn’t drawn in because of the decentralisation or the anonymous payments, I was hooked on the idea that anyone could get their hands on some just by running a program and leaving it to do its own thing. I know, how shallow of me. But the idea of making even a bit of money without ‘any work’ was convincing enough for 11-year-old me to do more digging into the matter.
To my disappointment, I soon found out that the era of mining Bitcoins with a PC’s CPU or GPU was long obsolete and instead it was all ASICs at that point.
So that summer, for my twelfth birthday, I got a little ASIC machine for €60, an Antminer U3. This little thing took up less space than a graphics card but could mine at 60 GH/s. Because, at the time, I didn’t have a controller device that could be kept up and running all day long so it could run the program that mined Bitcoin using the U3, I went ahead and got a Raspberry Pi. After setting up the Pi and installing all the necessary stuff (took an awfully long time), I connected it to AntPool and plugged the U3 in. Two days past and the mining pool sent the first Bitcoin I ever received to my wallet (I was using It was just 30 cents worth of BTC but I felt a bit of a rush because I was earning a bit of money through this completely new thing and the idea of that was thrilling.
Let’s back up for a second. I just used the term ‘earning’ as if I was profiting, and naive me 2 years ago was no different. In reality, I was at first oblivious to the fact that I was most likely LOSING money overall because of how much energy that little sucker was taking in. But, I was comforted thinking that using that machine was just a practical way of learning about this modern currency and that the loss of several cents’ worth of energy was acceptable in the name of education and learning.
Fast forward ten months to the wonderful summer of 2016. I had recently turned 13 and the Antminer U3 had been running on and off throughout. Various pauses and breaks in mining would be observed, as I had to manually get everything up and running after frequent breaks in the Internet connection. You’d expect my newly-turned-teenage brain to lose interest in Bitcoin as it does with many other gimmicks, but – even surprising myself – I miraculously didn’t. Good thing I maintained interest thinking about it now, not so good at the time for my parents. Why do I say this? I felt like it was time to get a little upgrade in my hardware.

Getting an upgrade

Days passed with me comparing every ASIC miner I could at that price point. It was then I set my eyes upon the Antminer S7 (same folks who did my U3, nice). I had put it up against a plethora of other miners and I figured the S7 was my best bet; the thing costs only about 10 times that of my U3 but could run at 4.73 TH/s, almost 80 times as powerful. The only problem being its power consumption was at 1300 watts, which would put a massive dent in the electricity bill and eliminate any profit I would make. Fortunately, I had a secret weapon up my sleeve – or rather my mum did. She had rented out an office outside our apartment where she would keep files and paperwork. The office’s electricity bill was a flat rate as far as I’m aware and it ended up being my saving grace because it virtually got rid of the “oh no I’m actually going to be losing money because of how much electricity I’m eating up” factor, making this whole hardware upgrade viable.
After convincing my parents, they finally agreed to shell out the requested amount, with the initial investment being paid back with time. I went to a local Bitcoin vendor and purchased 1 BTC for about $665 in cash (sigh yes, I know. $665 dollars). Shortly after, I used about 0.9 BTC to purchase the Antminer S7 and a 1600W power supply for a grand total of $600. The products would be made and shipped from China so I was definitely in for a wait.
A month passes and the package arrives at last. I connected all the wires from the power supply into the S7 and – with great anticipation – I plugged it into the wall to start its first ever run. And what do you know? An extremely loud and high-pitched whirring sound blasted out from the fans on both the power supply as well as the S7. After killing the thing, I questioned my choices. I couldn’t dare put that thing anywhere near my mum’s office in the event it drive everyone in the building absolutely nuts. I was at a loss. However, I soon recovered from my temporarily debilitated state and got working on a solution.
The first idea that came to my mind: change the fans. The stocks fans were by Evercool and spun at around 3000 RPM. The power supply used a small, robust fan that looked like a cube that must’ve spun at extremely high speeds judging by how high the sound it produced was. I got my parents to give me some more funding so I could acquire the replacement fans and I did. Bust. After installation and testing, none of the fans would work. I managed to configure the S7 to connect to my Antpool account and the machine would manage mining for several minutes running at peak performance but ultimately be automatically cut off because of how hot the machine was getting (I’m talking about 80 degrees Celsius kinda hot in that thing). The fans got refunded and I was back to the drawing board.
After combing through some forum posts and videos, I came across this video and a forum post in which people have their mining rigs placed inside a ventilated, muffled cabinet. Undertaking a project like this would be time-consuming and risky but I had no better ideas so I decided to go through with the idea anyway.
Firstly, I sought out a cabinet with suitable dimensions. I managed to get just what I needed at a second-hand IKEA shop. Great. Secondly, I went ahead and acquired some sound-absorbing acoustic foam from a local provider. Fantastic. Finally I had to get a ventilation system going within the cabinet, otherwise, all the hot air would roast the machine alive in there in a bloody mess. With the help of my dad, we found a pair cabinet fans on the Internet that were close to silent but could circulate the air well enough.
Eventually, all the materials came and, with the help of my parents, put everything together. The process took quite long time and we had a couple hiccups along the way, but we got it done and it came out pretty nice.
The moment of truth came and, to my relief, it ran so much quieter than without the cabinet. It was nowhere near silent but it reduced the noise a great deal. Soon after, I got the thing into the office and set everything up from there. Unfortunately, I was forced to underclock it because you could still hear the machine’s whining from outside the thin office door. Gunning the hashrate down about 25% to 3.7TH/s, I could lower the fan speed without risking the machine burning up. Sure, I wasn’t getting the full potential of the machine but I didn’t complain because electricity was not an issue there and it was still a whole lot better than my U3. With it up and running, I could leave it there, periodically checking to see if it was mining on Antpool.

The aftermath

In the months that followed, I was getting a solid $2.5 worth of BTC on daily basis. Half a year later, May of 2017, I had accumulated a satisfactory $600. I thought, “At this rate, I’d be able to pay my parents’ investment back in a few months” (the total investment came close to $900). Bitcoin had risen to over $1500 so I was already over the moon at that point because of how well everything was going. Little did I know…
I hit 0.5 BTC midway through September this year. The price of BTC had dropped after a sudden rise to $5000, but I couldn’t have asked for more. Although I possessed only half the amount of BTC I paid for the machine, its value was over twice that of the initial investment. I thought BTC would level off at around $4000 but nope.
In the month of October, the price skyrocketed. Since September, I had only mined 0.017 BTC but the value was already over $3000. It was just a matter of selling it, but I decided to hodl. Good thing I did.
As of November 5, I have approximately 0.52 BTC mined in total from my S7, valued at $4000. If I were to sell it right now, I’d have a profit of over $3100. And as for my miner, it’s churning out 0.0006 BTC daily, sounds like nothing but it’s still the equivalent of $5 today and I couldn’t be happier, at least with the miner and Bitcoin.
You remember that $665 for 1 BTC that I mentioned earlier? In hindsight, it would’ve been such a better idea to just keep that one Bitcoin and not do anything with it until today (in the interest of making much more money), as I’d theoretically have upwards of $7000. The idea of that still haunts me sometimes if I dwell on it too long but knowing that I’m in possession of an already hefty amount, the pain of it had numbed slightly. It’s not all doom and gloom for me from the exponential increase in Bitcoin’s value, however. Those first $0.3 payments from my humble little U3 all those years ago now are now the equivalent of over $6 today!
Bitcoin and everything it encompasses has been and still is a journey of discovery and an adventure. Looking back, starting with a modest €60 Antminer U3 to having a sum of Bitcoin equivalent to two extremely high-end gaming rigs (first thing I could think of as a comparison, sorry) has been something I can’t really describe. Through the course of the past few years, I’ve learned more about technology, I’ve unexpectedly gotten insight into economics and business and – of course – I’ve made a lot of money (if I decide to stop hodling that is).
Also, props to my parents for keeping an open mind throughout, I know some parents would be horrified at their kids being involved in something that has been used in some less-than-savoury ways and it's great knowing mine have been supportive all the way.
TL;DR got into Bitcoin mining 3 years ago at age 11 with an Antminer U3 that ran at 60 GH/s, got an Antminer S7 (4.73TH/s) and built a sound-muffling, ventilated cabinet for it. Am sat here today with $3000 profit if I decide to sell right now.
submitted by xx_riptide_xx to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

1/17/18 Obelisk Core Commentary on Bitmain A3

Some of the important information can also be found on the main discussion thread. Most statements from David Vorick (taek), who heads both Obelisk and Sia.

Statement in Obelisk discord #general

[11:42 PM] taek: Well, if they do anything stupid...
we took precautions and put an extra feature on the Sia chip. We can soft-fork Sia to invalidate the bitmain hardware without invalidating the Sia chip we're creating
[11:42 PM] taek: There's no need as long as they don't do anything stupid
[11:42 PM] Starbuckz8: I suspected you might have done that
[11:43 PM] taek: @Starbuckz8 and we're going to do it for every coin we make chips for
[11:43 PM] taek: If some actor starts behaving poorly, we want the devs to have a knife they can pull out, so they can hardfork without losing 100% of the network hardware
[11:44 PM] taek: We did it for decred too
[11:44 PM] taek: And we'll do it for Bitcoin, and we'll do it for the alts we're working on

Sia discord #announcements

[1:11 AM] taek: Bitmain has announced ASICs for Sia, shipping in 7 days. 1275w, 815 GH/s, ~$3200 USD. They are more expensive and less efficient than the Obelisk SC1, but they ship several months sooner (7 days as opposed to several months).
Bitmain has a long history of being abusive towards coin communities, their customers, and towards coin developers.We prepared for something like this by adding an extra feature to the SC1. We can do a soft-fork that slightly changes the PoW algorithm which would invalidate the bitmain ASICs, but allow the SC1 units to continue working. In the event of an attack from Bitmain, we can activate this soft fork. At this time, I do not think it is necessary, but if they start mining empty blocks or otherwise prove problematic for the network, we have recourse that does not involve destroying the usefulness of the SC1 units. This fork would of course require community adoption, it's not something the devs could decide to activate on their own. It would be a UASF, because the majority hashrate would not be standing behind the soft fork.
Overall, I do not think we have much to worry about. Hopefully (and very likely), this soft-fork will never be necessary. But I wanted to remind everyone (including Bitmain) that, at the end of the day, it is the community that has control, not the miners. If ASIC manufacturers act in a way that is harmful to the network, we have recourse.

Other Discussion

[12:14 AM] taek: @Pizard it's certainly not centralized control to build extra features into your hardware
[1:30 AM] taek: Yeah that's why I wanted to share our best simulation results. It's better than 2.25 GH/w btw. Our best result for the Sia miners is 3.7 GH/s per watt. But, that is really pushing it, we'd have to have a stable chip at 0.5V. Not clear it will be stable at 0.5V. 2.25 GH/w was at 0.6V, which is much more likely to work
Also, see
submitted by muunshot to siacoin [link] [comments]

Best of Buttcoin: 2014

There's been some fantastic work done in this subreddit spreading disinformation researching, criticising, and debunking bitcoin and its sacred cows over the past year, which I would like to celebrate.
So here's some posts I saved on bitcoin-related topics. But I started saving things too late... So if you have and/or remember any great posts from the past year, dig them up and post them here.
Also, unironically, maybe someone should start a buttcoin wiki

First, three pieces of investigative journalism from Buttcoin's top minds. Here Charlie_Shrem examines the environmental impact of bitcoin mining. Key finding: For every Bitcoin transaction, 47 kilograms of CO2 is released into the atmosphere from the miners alone.
Current hash rate: 261,900,382 GH/s
Number of transactions per day: 71,331
If we assume rather conservatively that 1GH/s = 1 watt on average, then this would mean 261,900,382W is being used to power the network. We can simplify this to 261,900 kW.
Some miners can do better than 1W per 1GH/s, but many if not most do worse (i.e. 2W per 1GH/s to 10W per 1GH/s).
Going by the figure of 0.527kg CO2 / kWh found on this page,
0.527kg CO2 x 261,900 kW x 24 hours = 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 per day
3,312,511.2 kg CO2 / 71,331 transactions = 46.44 kg CO2 per transaction
For comparison, even going by this Coindesk Article, an ATM produces daily 3.162kg in CO2 emissions.
0.25kwH x 0.527kg CO2 x 24 hours = 3.162kg/day.
That means that the carbon emission for one Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 15 ATMs processing perhaps hundreds or thousands of transactions in a day combined.

Earlier this month Frankeh abruptly interrupted remittance-focused annular onanism by issuing a challenge: to find a single instance where bitcoin works out cheaper than a fiat alternative. In case you need to ask... Nope.
Right, there's a bunch of circlejerking happening in /Bitcoin right now so I think it's time to cut through the bullshit one way or another.
Country to send money to.
The biggest remittance markets are China, Indian and the Philippines.
I believe that since /Bitcoin often gives the Philippines as an example of successful Bitcoin remittance then it is the perfect country to use in our challenge.
Country to send money from.
According to this wikipedia article Malaysia and Canada have the biggest expat Filipino communities. 900,000 and 500,000.
So I think we should do the calculations based on both countries.
The methodology
Most people are not paid in Bitcoin. This is a fact. So for our calculation you must start with fiat, and end in fiat. We're not doing these calculations based on future utility of Bitcoin (No, neo. I'm saying...), we're doing them on the current utility.
We will also be doing a bank to bank remittance, because that is nice an constant. We don't need to take into account pick up locations Bitcoin remittance allows and pick up locations normal remittance allows. They'll vary too much.
Time will also not be taken into account, as time doesn't actually matter when it comes to remittance. Now, Bitcoiners might shout about this particular rule but let me explain my logic behind this.
A foreign worker gets paid every Friday. They start the remittance process on the Friday and regardless of if it takes 0, 3, or 5 days their family back in their home country just needs to base their life around money coming in on remitters pay day + 0, 3, or 5 days. Time taken is of no real value when it comes to remittance. All that matters is that it consistently arrives on day x.
As such, any remittance services that take over 5 working days are to be ignored for the sake of this challenge.
The amount
The amount is going to be 25% of the average wage in each of the countries. This isn't extremely scientific because it doesn't particularly need to be, and the figures are hard to come by.
So 1826.75 MYR for Malaysia and 1,398 CAD for Canada.
Don't bother complaining about these, they're just examples.
Few more ground rules
  • We're going to be going from bank/bank card to bank regardless, so we're not interested in banking fees on either side. They will be the same regardless of Bitcoin or WU (for example)
  • It must be from local fiat to foreign fiat.. You can't palm off the conversion fee to the receivers bank to keep fees down.
  • Any remittance service can be used, as long as Bitcoin is involved for people fighting the Bitcoin corner and Bitcoin isn't used for people fighting the WU (or similar) corner.
  • You must go through the process and document all the fees for each. Fees to look out for are currency spreads, transaction fees on exchanges, etc

Finally a recent thread, but commendable all the same. Hodldown presents some research leading to facts overturning years of knowledge in the bitcoin wiki. Even us shills have been laughing at bitcoin's pathetic capability of 7 transactions per second. It turns out, we were out by at least a factor of 2:
The average number of transactions per block right now is: 665 transactions
The average block size is 0.372731752748842mb.
That means the average transaction is 0.00056049887mb. Which means 1mb of transactions (the limit) is 1784 transactions
Assuming a 10 minute block (a whole other can of worms) that means there is 10*60 seconds.
1784/600 isn't 7. It's a 2.97.
Bitcoin at a technical level can not handle even 3 transactions per second.

In one of the frequent bitcoin user invasions, PayingWithActualMone outlines why the "solution in search of a problem" isn't that great of a solution to much either.
On the transaction side: the Bitcoin community seems convinced that banks are ripping them off (which imo they are not), and that it can be fixed by applying some magicsauce over a transaction that is facilitated by banks regardless. So far in practice I haven't seen any evidence of the 'fast' 'cheap' and 'easy' transactions, like most recently with Mollie. They usually compare the fees of BTC>BTC transactions to the fees of Chase Mastercard > a fucking nomad in the Sahara (with consumer protection) to prove their point. The community also seems convinced that the entire world banks the way America does, not realizing that in Europe banking has been dirt cheap for years.
And the security... oh boy the security. Half the population can't manage to go without a virus for one year (not an actual statistic), and now you expect them to secure their coins? People are dumb as shit, and software is always one step behind the exploits. We could of course create Bitcoin banks, but then there isn't much left of the original idea.
On the 'intrinsic value' side: what the hell is wrong with people. If the underlying product is no good in any aspect, why is it worth much? Right now (that's like 5 years after introduction mind you) BTC is used in 3 types of transactions: Silk Road, SatoshiDice & extremely questionable transactions. It does its job well in that aspect, and that's all it will ever be. The community just turned the technology into a giant ponzi, and they don't care as long as they get paid. The people actually doing business in Bitcoin probably don't care about the price that much.

Someone who deleted their account, on the argument that merchant adoption is a cause of the price drop:
That's just an excuse butters use for the price going down.
There's no real difference between selling bitcoin for fiat and exchanging bitcoin for goods and services. Both are a form of sale of bitcoin, an expression of preference for something other than bitcoin.
If on balance, there's more flow of bitcoin into fiat, goods or services than there is a corresponding opposing flow, then it is simply the market expressing the view that bitcoin is overvalued. Therefore, the reduction in the value of bitcoin (as valued in fiat) is a sincere expression of the market's view of what the correct price for bitcoin is.
Think of an example: A true believer has 20 BTC. He exchanges 10 BTC with Dell for a whizzy server. Dell (or another intermediary) sell the 10 BTC at an exchange in return for fiat. The market price of BTC goes down.
The price goes down, simply because a true believer cut his bitcoin holding, he got out. He thought having a server now was worth more to him than 10 tickets to the moon. Which is an expression of a negative view of the future value of bitcoin. A simple "aggressive" sale in trading parlance.

A late entry from jstolfi. A concise description of the Satoshi/Bitcoin origin story .
My understanding is that "Satoshi" had been trying to solve the technical problem of convincing a bunch of anonymous, volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed ledger, with no central authority.
He thought that he had a solution, in the form of a protocol that included PoW, miner rewards, longest chain, etc. The solution seemed to work on paper; but, as a good scientist, he started an experiment in order to check whether it would also work in practice.
For that experiment to be meaningful, it would have been enough if the coin was mined for several years only by a few hundred computer nerds, with the cooperation of some friendly pizza places and bars.
The US$ price of the coin was not important to the experiment, and it was never meant to be a weapon for libertarians, a way to buy drugs or evade taxes, a competitor to credit cards or Western Union, a sound investment or item for day-trading. All those "goals" were tacked onto it afterwards.

bob237 comments on the the absurdity of coinbase and it's touted 'rebuy' scheme,
It gets even better than that, actually. A lot of bitcoiners don't like 'losing' bitcoin, and so coinbase added a popular 'repurchase bitcoin' feature that automatically debits your bank account to replenish the BTC in your coinbase account after a purchase.
The ultimate result then is that you pay coinbase fiat, they take their cut, and then send that fiat on to the merchant. All 'bitcoins' used in the middle of the transaction are not really bitcoins, but just abstractions in coinbase's internal [off-chain] accounting system.
It's a crap version of paypal, no consumer protection and a ton of fees hidden in the spread when you buy your chuck-e-cheese tokens from them.

saigonsquare explains why ubiquitous tipping isn't the the killer app that it has been touted as, and why bitcoiners may fail to grasp this
Most people understand that there are different sorts of interaction. There are purely social interactions, there are quid-pro-quo interactions, and there are market interactions. Mixing those up causes embarrassment and insult. I wouldn't try to pay my mother-in-law ten bucks for cooking Christmas dinner, and I certainly wouldn't try to pay her ten cents. If a waiter suggests I try the raspberry tart, I won't get away with offering to bake him some cookies next week in compensation; if an office mate suggests I have a slice of her birthday cake, I'll be insulted if she brings me a bill for it. If I spend an hour helping my friend move apartments and he thanks me, I'm fine; we're friends helping each other out. If he pays me two bucks, I'm insulted; he's canceled the social nature of the interaction and instead simply bought my labor for a fraction of its going rate. I'm up two bucks but down a friend.
Ancapspergers, not particularly understanding any sort of interaction more complicated than buying a cheeseburger at Wendy's, assume that all interactions are a form of market transaction, and set pricing accordingly. Normal humans get offended by a penny shaving, because it cancels the social nature of the interaction and turns it into a market transaction--and then informs the recipient that his contribution to the transaction was of negligible value.
submitted by occasionallyrude to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

bitcoin mining profitable in the US? Where are my calculations off?

Someone tell me where my calculations are wrong. Amazon has this miner advertised:
Antminer S9 ~14.0TH/s @ .098W/GH 16nm ASIC Bitcoin Miner
So that would consume 14000*0.98=1372 watts.
Given my electricity costs (0.12 $/kwhr), I would make $8.19 for every $1 of electricity. In a month, I would make $884.
That can't be right. Where did I screw up?
Here is a python script to calculate that:
dollars_per_kwhr= 173.17 / 1390 dollars_per_btc= 6000 miner_kwatts=1.372 miner_terahashes_per_second= 14.0 network_terahashes_per_second= 9e6 block_time=600 block_reward=25 rev_dollars_per_sec= dollars_per_btc * block_reward * miner_terahashes_per_second / (network_terahashes_per_second * block_time) cost_dollars_per_sec= dollars_per_kwhr*miner_kwatts/3600 print "rev={}".format(rev_dollars_per_sec) print "cost={}".format(cost_dollars_per_sec) print "ratio={}".format(rev_dollars_per_sec/cost_dollars_per_sec) print "profit per month={}".format(3600*24*30*(rev_dollars_per_sec-cost_dollars_per_sec)) 
edit: thanks to Personthingman2. 25 vs 12.5 block reward. when I change that, my script outputs: rev=0.000194444444444 cost=4.74798641087e-05 ratio=4.09530330582 profit per month=380.93219223
This is a $4000 unit, so it pays for itself in 10 months. OK. So whether I will ever make money on this depends heavily on the growth of the network hashing rate over time, and the increase in BTC price.
edit2: I am guessing that the answer to my question is that I would be lucky for the unit to keep working long enough to pay for itself. It would likely break down before reaching that point.
submitted by SilencingNarrative to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The $22,484.00 Butterfly Labs Mini Rig bitcoin miner is a huge, broken, unstable piece of shit.

(This was a rather controversial article posted on and became quite popular, even moving to the top of /bitcoin. It's since been mysteriously edited on the site [maybe by g-g-g-ghosts!] so it's being reposted here for posterity's sake. Some numbers may be off by now, but it was all accurate at the time of posting.)
Butterfly Labs has a long and horrible history with their mining rigs. They started taking pre-orders over a year ago, with a ship time sometime in late July. After numerous delays in production, shipping problems and general incompetence, the only thing they’ve managed to get out the door are some of their tiniest miners, the Jalapenos. And those mainly ended up in the hands of reviewers and blogs in order to keep pumping the Butterfly Labs hype train and securing millions of dollars of pre-orders still in limbo.Lucky BFL forums user Luke-JR however scored a sweet Mini Rig from Butterfly Labs (it’s just a coincidence he’s a driver developer for them I’m sure). This rig was originally promised to produce 1500 GH/s hashing power at 1500 watts for $30,000, but has since seen it’s hashing power slashed to a third of what was promised and it’s power consumption increased 75%, now just offer 500 GH/s at 2400 watts. They’ve promised to make good on pre-order buy sending out 3 rigs to match the initial hashing rate, so now it’s only 1500 GH/s at 6900 watts, a reduction in GH/Watt by a factor of 5.
So what does $22,484 buy you? Take a look!
Minirig is here! Today, my Minirig arrived.
FedEx apparently dropped it somewhere along the way, and the weakest part of the case, the thin metal part around the back of the PSU, broke.
I’m not sure how sturdy the back side was supposed to be, but its two pieces aren’t quite together either.
The power supplies (EVGA 1500W) also created havoc interfering with the neutral on the power line. This disrupted X10 communication significantly enough that the pool overflowed because the system controlling it was unable to turn off the pump. Workaround: This PSU supports 240V, so we rewired the outlet. 240V does not use neutral, so now all should be okay.
Edit: 240V workaround is only partial. Still having problems
But the good news is, it all seems to be working for the most part.
Next up, installing it in the window so the heat goes outside
A twenty two thousand dollar box of electronics that is broken out of the box, that required the guy to do a sketchy electrical workaround to get partially working, that he is going to install in a window… and he’s happy about it?
In case you didn’t notice it, the delivered unit is different than the picture on the website. They had to install 2 power supplies instead of 1 and had to modify the case to fit. Also, if you didn’t notice, the LCD/Phone thingy in the front has been replaced by … a piece of cardboard spray painted black. Wonderful.
You could maybe chalk this up to a careless Fedex postman, but when you’re shipping something that costs as much as a mid-sized sedan, how bought putting a little more effort into packing? Dell and HP can ship bigger and heavier servers across the world without this kind of problem.
The unit had to hit its huge power draw increase by putting dual EVGA consumer grade power supplies in the unit. We’re talking almost a 75 amp load (6*1500/120), disregarding power factor. He could very well overload the circuit panel and trip the main breaker for the house.
Let’s take a look inside this guy.
This is from an earlier version of the Minirig (note the single power supply) This is apparently from an earlier FPGA but it will give you a good glimpse at what kind of craftsmanship you can expect from a computer that is half the average household income in the United States.
Consumer grade PSU and cheap USB hubs glued to the inside case.
Electrical tape and random velcro glued to the insides
A closer look at the USB hubs. Plugs are hot glued to stay secured.
Electrical tape everywhere, splices and voided hardware are the theme.
You can view the entire album here.
Despite all that, this thing can still mine bitcoins and it should be profitable. Keep in ind that many people jumped in on the preorders a year ago when bitcoins were still hovering around $6.50 per. Meaning customers paid 1562 bitcoins for that particular piece of shit, which at today’s value is $156,200. Aston martin money. How long will it take them to make their money back (as apposed to just hanging on to them)? If the difficulty didn’t change, they would make 37 bitcoins a day and recoup the initial investment in 124 days. Difficulty is jumping pretty much 20% every 12 days or so, so in the next week before adjustment, they’ll make 259, the next 12 days 369, the next 12 days 312, then 256, then 213, etc.
So by day 127, they’ll be halfway to breaking even, but by day 151 they’ll be making less than 5 bitcoins a day, and even if difficulty stopped rising at that point(which it won’t), it would take another 435 days for a total of 586 days to break even. If difficulty kept rising at the same pace, by day 200 they’d be making 2.4 bitcoins per day, and it would take 1024 days to break even with no difficulty increase. Assuming 25 cents per kw/h, and $100 a bitcoin, it would cost 0.43 of a bitcoin per day in electricity which means the unit would no longer be profitable on a power usage basis by day 307, at which point it will have produced 2620 bitcoins.
Bear in mind this is only for the first few units, and that’s running 24/7 pumping out around 24,000 BTU, so yes, medical bills from heat stroke will be on top of that.
But Alas, the chips don’t run nearly as well as they’re supposed to, frequently running too hot and giving multiple hardware failures. Coindesk noted in one of the first ever runs of the Minirig by hosting provide gigavps that it was running much too hot and erroring out.
At the time of posting, gigavps warned that the unit would be repeatedly shut down while ckolivas, who was assisting, modified the machine’s software to optimise performance. After some tweaking, the device was said to have been left to run continuously for two hours, and was shown to have an average hash rate of 478.1 GH/s. As you can see in the table below, ASIC number four (of a total of eight hashing chips) ran significantly hotter (86 degrees) and consequently gave the highest hardware (HW) error rate.
So, what happens if you just decide you don’t want this, you don’t want to wait over a year to get a $22,000 broken piece of shit? Nothing, because BFL won’t let you cancel your preorder because they’re now “shipping”, i.e. they sent out one unit to their own company shill.
Which is of course illegal regardless of what Butterfly Labs may say.
So in summary: Don’t buy anything from Butterfly Labs … ever.
submitted by borderpatrol to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin transaction fees actually ~$50?

This has been done a couple times, but I tried to figure out the best case scenario for cost per transaction in BTC with current technology. Using the most electric efficient (and un-released) ASIC mining chip in existence and pretending that's what every single miner's efficiency is, the average US electric cost, it comes out to:
2,193,081,010 GH required per block mined at current difficulty. That means 1,664,810,757 watts, or 166,641 Kw/H. That translates to about $20,000 per block, or roughly $50 per transaction. That's only factoring in the cost of electricity, not equipment/maintenance. Incidentally, that means the network as a whole is running at about a $5,000 deficit per block at current price even after the 25 BTC reward per block. This doesn't cost a lot of money for your average miner, but it does mean that transaction fees are currently being subsidized by the hopes and dreams of Bitcoin's eventual value. (Transaction fees should be about $12.50 in a rational world)
submitted by tulipfutures to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why the high cost of protecting against a 51% attack makes proof of work unsustainable.

Let's do the math for a moment.
Right now, the network consists of 2,369,000 GH/s.
If we go by KNC miner and Bitfury's mining products, we can say that a cautious estimate would be that we require about 1 watt per hour for every GH/s. This is not yet the case, as people are still using older less efficient Bitcoin miners, but we can sustain the present mining difficulty at 1 watt per GH/s.
The average price Americans pay is 12 cents per kilowatt-hour (which is 1000 watt per hour).
Thus, we can calculate the price of the network per hour as following:
2,369,000 watt per hour / 1000 = 2369 kWh.
2369 kWh x 0.12 = 284.28 dollar per hour.
We have on average 2491 transactions per hour right now, according to Bitcoin charts.
Thus the price of a single Bitcoin transaction right now can be as low as 284.28 / 2491 = 0.1141 dollar.
Compare this to an earlier, 2011 estimate. Back then, the average price for a transaction was $4,20 dollar. So, there has been some progress in this regards.
However, in reality we are paying the miners a subsidy, in the form of the block reward, which reduces the value of our Bitcoin, and has to be included in the calculations. The current block reward is 25 bitcoin. If we assume 6 blocks are mined per hour, this means that we pay miners 150 bitcoin per hour. With one bitcoin valued at 150 dollar, this means we pay 22,500 dollar per hour in "mining subsidies" to protect against a 51% attack.
22500 + 284.28 = 22784.28 dollar per hour, paid to sustain the network. Divide this by 2491 transactions, and we pay 9.14 dollar per transaction.
This is all meant to sustain the present difficulty level, and encourage investment in Bitcoin mining.
The problem is that the block reward won't be sustained forever. Every transaction on the Bitcoin network has to pay a transaction fee, which is required due the price it costs us to protect the network against a 51% attack.
The bigger problem we have is that a 51% attack funds itself. After all, the same reward that is paid to legitimate miners is paid to an attacker. Thus, engaging in a 51% attack would only cost the attacker money when mining itself costs him money.
This is made worse that a 51% attack can pay for itself in the form of a price crash. A man who engages in a 51% attack can bet on the price of Bitcoin to collapse, for example, by selling bitcoin short.
Our insurance against 51% attacks is very expensive right now, and we're not even sure whether our current difficulty is high enough. The problem is that this problem won't be solved by an increase in use of Bitcoin, because an increase in Bitcoin use increases the financial reward to be gained from a 51% attack.
This is why Bitcoin is valued at a low price right now. We don't know whether the network is capable of paying for the 51% insurance required to keep the network secure.
The solution to this may be found in the form of responsive mining. In the scenario of responsive mining, people only start mining blocks when there is a threat of a 51% attack. It's the equivalent of only hiring bodyguards when you think you may get shot.
However, the problem is that responsive mining is still a tragedy of the commons situation. When we see indicators of an upcoming 51% attack, we all expect each other to start mining, but if there is no profit to be made in protecting the network against the 51% attack, we will have no direct incentive to insure the network.
The solution to this could be argued to be proof of stake. Under proof of stake, anyone who mines would be forced to prove that he owns a significant amount of Bitcoin. Therefore, the miner would likely lose more money by attacking Bitcoin than he gains by betting on its downfall.
Quoting from the Bitcoin Wiki:
In a competitive market equilibrium, the total volume of txn fees must be equal to opportunity cost of all resources used to verify txns. Under proof-of-work mining, opportunity cost can be calculated as the total sum spent on mining electricity, mining equipment depreciation, mining labor, and a market rate of return on mining capital. Electricity costs, returns on mining equipment, and equipment depreciation costs are likely to dominate here. If these costs are not substantial, then it will be exceptionally easy to monopolize the mining network. The fees necessary to prevent monopolization will be onerous, possibly in excess of the 3% fee currently charged for credit card purchases.
My fear is that with every block-halving the difficulty is going to decline, and the incentive to engage in a 51% attack will increase, which would permanently destroy Bitcoin's credibility and encourage people to step over to an alternative cryptocurrency.
We may require a hard fork to implement a more sophisticated protection against a 51% attack, rather than "waste a lot of energy coming up with solutions to difficult mathematical problems".
submitted by accountt1234 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

12-10 23:33 - 'Lets have a discussion about energy consumption in bitcoin mining and what that means towards the carbon footprint today.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Cryptolution removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min

There was a [very good coindesk article in July 2014]1 that broke down the carbon footprint of the bitcoin mining network. At the date of the article, our hashrate was 146,505 TH/s. Now that we are at above 13 exahashes/s this represents a 94 fold increase hashing power.
[Here is the cost breakdown chart from the coindesk article]2 .
As you can see from this image, the carbon footprint of bitcoin in 2014 is a tiny fraction compared to the carbon footprint of the traditional banking system. Yet at a 0.78 Billion per year cost in 2014, at a 94 fold increase of power that would now be 73.32 billion, which would make bitcoin 9.52 billion more in electricity costs.
But this is trying to extrapolate data in a non-accurate way. In order to understand why this is inaccurate, we must look at how all of this technology works and how technology has scaled upwards while decreasing electricty consumption.
The bitcoin network at 13 exahashes is roughly 130 times greater than the largest super computer (Sunway, 93 petahashes per sec in china, see []3 )
So when you make that statement, you think "wow, bitcoin must use a lot of energy to be 130 times more powerful than the largest super computer network!"
But, its not apples to oranges. These super computer networks are non-specialized hardware (comparably to bitcoin) in that they have generalized computing capabilities. This means that these systems require more standardized hardware so that they can preform a large amount of different computing functions.
So, for example, the largest Sunway supercomputer @ 93 petaflops (roughly 1/130th the power of the bitcoin network) preforms its calculations at 93,014.6 petahashes @ 15,371 kW = 93014000 Gh @ 15370000 watts. Doing the maths, this comes out to a 0.16524 W/Gh.
The AntMiner S9 currently operates at 0.098 Gh nearly double the energy efficiency of what the most powerful super computer network in the world operates at.
You have the Dragonmint miner coming out Q1-Q2 in 2018 which uses 0.075J/GHs ....a 30% efficiency increase over the Antminer S9.
And next year japanese giant GMO is launching into the bitcoin mining business, stating they will be releasing a 7nm ASIC design, which is more than double the efficiency of the current 16nm design the Antminer S9 uses. This will mean a more than doubling of energy efficiency. They said they have plans after the release of the first product to research "5nm, and 3.5nm mining chips"
So, what is the point of understanding all of this? Well, you have to understand how technology scales (think Moore's law) to understand how we can achieve faster computational speeds (more exahashes per second) without increasing the carbon footprint.
So if you look at a proof of work chart, you'll see it has scaled linearly upwards since the birth of bitcoin. And it would be logical to assume that the more hashes per sec thrown into the network, that it would equate to more power being spent. Yet this is not true due to advancements in ASIC chip design, power efficiency, and basic economic fundamentals.
You see, as new miners come out, because they are more efficient, people can run much faster mining rigs at much lower cost. This immediately adds much more hashing power to the network, which decreases the profitability of old miners. And to give you an idea of how much more cost efficient these are, lets look at Antminers products.
S9 - 0.098 W/Gh
S7 - 0.25 W/Gh
Avalon6 - 0.29 w/Gh
You can see the S9 is 3 times more power efficient than the Avalon6. That translates to "It costs 3 times more to operate this equipment". That aint no small difference.
These differences, combined with energy costs are what forces miners to stop running old hardware and to upgrade to newer models or exit mining completely. So as new mining equipment hits the market, old less efficient mining rigs go offline. The amount of hashes per sec continues to climb, yet the actual power usage of the entire network does not scale at the same rate that the hashes per sec scale at, due to increased energy efficiency.
The question that I would like to see answered by the community is this -
What has changed between now and 2014 in terms of total watts consumed? How can we calculate the real carbon footprint of todays bitcoin mining network compared to this data from 2014?
What equipment was running in 2013-2014, what were their W/Gh and how many of these machines do we speculate are still running vs more efficient mining rigs powering the network today? What is the Th/S differences between these mining rigs, and how much more power do we contribute towards the network today because of these optimized rigs?
Mining is not my specialty and there are going to be many people here who are better suited to tackling these problems.
I think these questions need to be answered and articulated because these are questions that im starting to see a lot from the mainstream as criticism towards bitcoin. I know the generic answer, aka "Bitcoin mining still uses a fraction of the cost that the entire global banking system does", but we really need to do better than that. We need to examine the different power types used in bitcoin mining -
How much of bitcoin mining is from hydroelectric? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Coal? Natural Gas? What regions contribute the largest hashing power and can we evaluate whether these regions are Hydroelectric, Coal, Nuclear etc dependent?
If we are to articulate effective arguments against those who naysay bitcoin over its carbon footprint, then we must do so with good data to backup our positions.
Hopefully the numbers above are accurate/correct. Honestly only spent a few minutes doing napkin math, so I expect there to be mistakes, please let me know and thank you very much all.
Lets have a discussion about energy consumption in bitcoin mining and what that means towards the carbon footprint today.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Cryptolution
1: 2: 3: ww**top500*org/*ists*2*17/11*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

[SG] In-Stock in US: USB DualMiner 300-350Kh/s at 60 watts + 8Gh/s-11.25Gh/s Bitcoin - 260k Doge each

Finally in Stock.
These ASIC miners will mine Dogecoin and Bitcoin at the same time. These are low power consumption units, so you will save money in energy cost. They draw about 60 watts each while mining.
The worlds first ASIC miner that can operate in three modes. Mode 1: Scrypt only (Litecoin/Dogecoin) Mode 2: SHA only (Bitcoin) Mode 3: SHA & Scrypt combined.
Each unit is capable of producing up to the following: Scrypt only mode: 350 KH/S SHA only mode: 11.25 GH/S Combined Scrypt & SHA mode: 8Gh/s SHA + 300Kh/s Scrypt
All figures are approximations.
Note: you will need a power supply for each these. It needs to be: 12Volt 7Amp , adapter : 5.5mm x 2.1mm.
300k Doge each, Includes US shipping. (upped the cost due to weak Doge.) New listing here:
submitted by Sseleman to dogemarket [link] [comments]

Hash Rate going to 2bn GH/s - this is why!

Lets calculate the hash rate at the marginal cost of electricity;
0.10 $/kWatthour 800.00 Bitcoin price 150.00 Bitcoins per hour (using 25 per 10 mins target) 120,000.00 $ Payout per hour 1,200,000,000.00 Watt (price times payout) 0.70 Watts/GH/s (here I used the Neptune 20nm miner) 1,714,285,714 Giga Hash/s (Watt/0.7)
This is where I think we will eventually end up should the price stay at this level.
submitted by bitcoinliberty to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Primer

I have been helping a friend develop business strategies at a Bitcoin start-up over the last few months. In the course of this work, the topic of Bitcoin mining appears often to be fraught with misinformation and uncertainty, especially for individual miners who unfortunately may find it difficult to return an adequate profit in many cases. This informal guide covers some important issues prospective miners should consider to avoid headaches and financial loss. The information is derived from experience deploying a 400 TH/s system scheduled to come online in around December. Opinions are my own; I’m happy to entertain constructive feedback.
This year, the Bitcoin network will award miners nearly USD 500 million, at the current price of USD 375 per bitcoin, to participate in a process known as mining. Unsurprisingly, this has attracted significant interest not only from Bitcoin advocates, but from speculators and investors as well. Regardless of one’s motivations, the business of Bitcoin mining must ultimately be profitable, or at least operationally viable, if there is to be any chance of success.
Acquiring and personally managing ASIC miners is probably the most fulfilling way to mine bitcoins. It provides the greatest level of transparency, but requires a certain level of technical proficiency to set up and run.
1) No hosting fees payable
2) Full control of operating parameters
3) Direct payment from mining pool
1) Purchasing the latest mining hardware is inherently risky because the ongoing development of energy-efficient ASIC chips requires expertise, time and millions of dollars. R&D is usually funded by customer prepayments with no guarantee of timeliness or success. It is not uncommon for miners to incur financial loss and opportunity costs when a supplier fails to deliver
2) The retail price of hardware is typically marked up anywhere from 25% to 500%, or more, depending on market conditions. This creates a barrier to profitability, making it harder for miners to recoup hardware costs if they are unable to negotiate for volume discounts
3) Shipping fees and import tariffs can cost hundreds of dollars per unit, especially if importing equipment from overseas. This adds to the cost of hardware and must be taken into account when calculating the return on investment
4) Shipping time varies greatly. Each day spent in transit incurs an opportunity cost
5) Miners need to set aside space, usually in the home, to locate mining equipment
6) Many mining units may generate excessive noise, and heat that requires around the clock ventilation to maintain an optimal operating temperature range
7) The average mining unit draws up to three amps of current. A system containing twenty units could easily exceed the power limit in a typical home
8) Electricity is by far the largest expense in any mining operation, making up around 90 percent of operating costs. If the price of residential power is materially higher than the rate paid by commercial operators, it makes home mining uncompetitive
Buying into a cloud mining service is often marketed as a convenient and hassle-free way to get in on Bitcoin mining. As the mining assets are managed by an intermediary, getting a breakdown of operating costs prior to purchase often proves difficult. This makes it challenging for potential customers to make a fully informed buying decision. The unspoken truth is that some cloud miners incorporate obsolete equipment—cheap miners from previous generations or liquidated, unprofitable hardware—into their cloud to sell to unsuspecting customers. Older mining units can consume 80% more power than the current generation miners, leaving very little profit for the customer. In addition to the acquisition price, those in the market for cloud mining should consider the