7 Best Bitcoin Mining Pool in 2020 Reviewed (+ Fees Compared)

Bitcoin Pool Support for Bigger Blocks Pie Chart. Updated with AntPool's new support for emergent consensus. The consensus is starting to look overwhelming

Bitcoin Pool Support for Bigger Blocks Pie Chart. Updated with AntPool's new support for emergent consensus. The consensus is starting to look overwhelming submitted by timepad to btc [link] [comments]

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated.

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated. submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Pool Support for Bigger Blocks Pie Chart. Updated with AntPool's new support for emergent consensus. The consensus is starting to look overwhelming /r/btc

Bitcoin Pool Support for Bigger Blocks Pie Chart. Updated with AntPool's new support for emergent consensus. The consensus is starting to look overwhelming /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated.

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated.

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement violated. submitted by ImagesOfNetwork to ImagesOfHongKong [link] [comments]

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement vio /r/btc

This chart shows Bitcoin price *UP* 75% ($450->$790) after May 23, when Jihan (AntPool) insisted devs must honor Hong Kong hard-fork agreement for bigger blocks, and Peter R (Unlimited) published Xthin proposals in June. Then July 31 price *DOWN* 10% ($660->$600) after hard-fork agreement vio /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

In the last 24 hours, Bitcoin's Nakamoto Coefficient (a measure of decentralization) has dropped to TWO. Bitmain and F2Pool now control 62% of the hashrate

Is anyone else watching the mining pool charts? It seems like the large pools are slowly killing off the smaller pools. BTC.com and AntPool are both Bitmain:
https://btc.com/stats/pool?pool_mode=day
From the Bitcoin wiki:
Note that in the reality of bitcoin mining today, more than 6 confirmations are required. (60 confirmations to have <1% odds of succeeding against an entity with 40% hash power). See Section 11 of the (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf bitcoin whitepaper) for the AttackerSuccessProbability formula.
submitted by Qwahzi to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Now that is a pretty picture.

Now that is a pretty picture. submitted by Leithm to btc [link] [comments]

Will Bitcoin really rise again?

Hello, I feel I should introduce myself first.
I got into Bitcoin back mid-2017. I bought in at about 1.8k if I remember correctly. I was also invested in Ethereum at this time, and got in between 60-120 (my friend sent me some at 60, but I continued to buy around 120).
As many of you know. Bitcoin has been in a bear market for the past several months. And over these past several months concerns have popped into my mind in regards to the overall health and future of Bitcoin:
None of what I mentioned above was an issue in 2013, or 2015 when we saw our previous bear markets in Bitcoin. This makes me truly believe that we're unlikely to see a bull run like we did in 2017 ever again. Not to mention the fact that Cryptocurrencies in and of themselves are more regulated than ever before, which could in turn lead to lower levels of volatility now and in the years to come. I'm sure Bitcoin will have its pops and bull runs, but nothing parabolic like we've seen in the past.

Please tell me I'm wrong, because I'd rather be wrong than right in this case.
submitted by 7Leven to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What bitcoin mining distribution could actually look like right now

What bitcoin mining distribution could actually look like right now submitted by Hitchslappy to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Are 12-word Seeds for Bitcoin Private Keys Secure? (A Mathematical Adventure)

When you go to generate a private key, you usually generate a seed of at least 12 words (many wallets, including those discussed here, also allow 24 words to be used), but this set of words will be taken from a dictionary of varying size depending on the wallet software.
If my research is correct, there are 2256 possible bitcoin private key combinations, or ~1077.
Also:
The important thing to remember is that every 1 less exponent to the 10th power means 1/10th as many combinations. Therefore, the following table shows the relative security of each dictionary compared to a purely randomly generated private key alone.
Dictionary Size Combos Relative Strength to All Combinations
1,626 1038 1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000
4,096 1043 1 / 10000000000000000000000000000000000
200,000 1062 1 / 1000000000000000
N/A 1077 1
But does this matter? (The big question)
This next part is where I'm not sure, because I'm about to compare bitcoin mining to generating random private numbers, and I don't know if it's a good comparison. But let's say the biggest mining pool (Antpool)'s entire strength (845 Petahash / sec) was dedicated to guessing private key seeds. Like a massive dictionary attack. Of course in the real world it would be slower because each wallet must be checked for balance.
Let's divide that into the total combos to get the crack time of all combos:
Dictionary Size Combinations Crack Time (s) Translated Time
1,626 1038 1020 ~1012 years
4,096 1043 1025 ~1017 years
200,000 1062 1044 ~1036 years
For scale, the age of the universe is 109 years. But remember, that would be to calculate ALL possible combinations. Let's look at one wallet example, which publishes that there are currently 16 million users of theirs. Let's just use that (~107) as the total number of private keys in-use for each wallet-dictionary configuration above (yes it's a very rough estimate).
So let's estimate how long it would take the mining pool to correctly guess just ONE of these users' private key. The probability (P) of each guess will be users (U) 107 divided by the number of combinations (C). The inverse of this will be the number of guesses to get one right (G). Therefore Guesses divided by hashrate (H) is the Time (T) required for one correct guess. So...
P = U÷C G = 1÷P = C÷U T = G ÷ H ∴ Guess Time = (Combinations ÷ Users) ÷ Hashrate 
If we want to make this useful in the future, we can create a general equation by substituting our calculation of combinations.
D = Dictionary Size N = Number of words in seed U = Users (Wallets using dictionary) H = Hashrate (guesses per second) Guess Time = ((D^N)/U)/H 
Or:
| Guess Time of One Key (in seconds) = DN ÷ (U×H)
This general equation should be correct for all cases, if U and H can be accurately determined. Let's try this out with our examples from above to see if we are safe!
Assuming: 12 words, 107 users, 1018 H/s
Dictionary Size Time Per Correct Guess
1,626 ~ 1 Million Years
4,096 ~ 10 Billion Years
200,000 ~ 1031 (10 thousand billion billion billion) years
Conclusions / TL;DR:
I would say at this point in time, it is perfectly fine to use 12 seed words with a reasonably large dictionary. Remember, the above table is just for one single correct guess. We also assumed instant checking of wallets. Because the time is inversely proportional to the power, we might say the time to guess will halve every year (other variables being equal), which makes total sense.
We can calculate how long until each configuration (of a particular # of words and dictionary size) will only take one second per guess, by doing [Time per guess in any "time unit" ÷ 2x = 1 "time unit"] and solving for X.
At this rate, with a 1626 word dictionary, using 12 words, it will be around 40 years until 1 key can be guessed per second. Or 20 years until 1 Key per year. At which point you can just add a 13th word.
Edit: Another good point: Adding a custom word to your seed is an excellent idea. It would instantly expand the dictionary to be as large as the entire english language, or, if it's not an english word, as large as all words in all languages. Making your seed unguessable if that dictionary is attacked.
Edit 2: Lots of people are quick to pounce and say that the hash rate I use as a guessing speed is wrong (which I said right off the bat), or that the seed-words are used differently than what I said, having to do with entropy. This whole post is a oversimplified, theoretical, very rough guess, where even if it was exactly correct it wouldn't have drawn a different conclusion. The guess-rate I chose would obviously be much much slower in reality, so this would be a worst-case scenario.
submitted by Angstrom5 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BCH nov15-dec15 update . BCH moves along and claims its #4 place back on CMC


https://news.bitcoin.com/hash-wars-bch-proponents-face-a-new-dawn-in-the-battles-aftermath/


35 days later after the fork, Bitcoin Cash supporters are working towards moving past the hash war that took place a little after the scheduled BCH upgrade on Nov. 15. Now both networks are operating and the Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision (BSV) coin has its own price ticker and market capitalization listed on data sites like Coinmarketcap and Satoshi Pulse. A portion of crypto-trading platforms have now listed BSV as a separate currency and the entire ecosystem of exchanges, payment processors and a great majority of wallets have awarded the ABC side of the chain the BCH ticker. At the time of writing, the global average price for BCH is $144 after markets jumped 47 percent on Dec. 19. BSV spiked 18 percent this Tuesday and each coin is currently trading for $92 per token.

Since the fork, the BCH network hashrate has dropped considerably, even more so than the 50 percent loss BTC suffered this past month. Average hashrates for a great number of SHA-256 algorithm coins have endured deep drops in processing power according to global statistics. The Bitcoin Cash hashrate used to command a rough average of 5 exahash per second (EH/s), but now only captures 1 EH/s to 850 petahash per second (PH/s) on a daily basis throughout this month.

On the bright side, the BCH network has been 5-8 percent more profitable to mine than BTC over the last two days. Further, BCH has amassed a large swathe of different mining pools that are processing BCH blocks on a regular basis. This includes Viabtc, Btc.com, Antpool, Multipool, Bitcoin.com, Btc.top, Waterhole, Copernicus, P2pool, Ckpool, and some other unknown mining entities as well.

Another BCH metric that has halved since the fork on Nov. 15 is the cryptocurrency’s daily transaction rate over the last month. Before, bitcoin cash transactions per day were about 20,000-25,000, whereas today that number stands at roughly 9,750 over the course of the last 24 hours. Over the last three weeks, the BCH daily transaction rate has been averaging 10k per day, with a few instances of 15k-22k spikes here and there. There has been a steady increase in daily transactions week after week, and with 99 percent of BCH infrastructure back in order, this should continue.

A good example of this behavior is the increase in BCH price and trade volume on exchanges over the last few weeks. Pre-fork BCH trade volumes captured anywhere between $400-900 million worth of global trades every day. After the fork, this statistic dropped to around $50-100 million daily on global exchanges. This was because some cryptocurrency trading platforms with a ton of bitcoin cash liquidity had paused BCH transactions and some exchanges halted trading. Week after week, however, global BCH trade volume has been steadily increasing on exchanges like Upbit, Binance, Huobi, Lbank, and Coinbase Pro. With the 40 percent increase over the last 24 hours, BCH trade volume has jumped to over $400 million in global trades on Dec. 19. At the time of publication, this makes BCH the seventh most traded digital asset out of the entire crypto economy.

The Bitcoin Cash community had also suffered from daily battles on Reddit’s btc forum and social media platforms like Twitter. A good portion of the trolling and infighting seems to have quietened down, and most BCH supporters are just trying to move forward. There’s been plenty of developments since the fork, with projects like Electron Cash, Honest Cash, Cash Shuffle, and Openswap adding more utility to the BCH network. Furthermore, BCH enthusiasts look forward to the upcoming BCH upgrades that are under discussion and they can track the code’s development too. For now, BCH supporters are extremely pleased that the fork is behind them and are thrilled to reclaim fourth position among all cryptocurrency market capitalizations.
submitted by mohtasham22 to btc [link] [comments]

Let us not forget the original reason we needed the NYA agreement in the first place. Centralization in mining manufacturing has allowed for pools to grow too powerful, granting them the power to veto protocol changes, giving them bargaining powers where there should be none.

SegWit2x through the NYA agreement was a compromise with a group of Chinese mining pools who all march to the beat of the same drum. Antpool, ViaBTC, BTC.TOP, btc.com, CANOE, bitcoin.com are all financially linked or linked through correlated behavior. Antpool, ConnectBTC and btc.com being directly controlled by bitmain, and ViaBTC and Bitmain have a "shared investor relationship". If bitmain is against position A, then all those other pools have historically followed its footsteps. As Jimmy Song explains here the NYA compromise was because only a small minority of individuals with a disproportionate amount of hashrate were against Segwit (Bitmain and subsidiaries listed above), where the rest of the majority of signatories of NYA were pro-segwit. The purpose of the compromise was to prevent a chain split, which would cause damage to the ecosystem and a loss of confidence in bitcoin generally.
At current time of calculation, according to blockchain.info hashrate charts, these pools account for 47.6% of the hashrate. What does it matter if these pools are running a shell game of different subsidiaries or CEO's if they all follow a single individual's orders? 47.6% is enough hashrate right now to preform a 51% attack on the network with mining luck factored in. This statistic alone should demonstrate the enormous threat that Bitmain has placed on the entire bitcoin ecosystem. It has compromised the decentralized model of mining through monopolizing ASIC manufacturing which has lead to a scenario in which bitcoins security model is threatened.
But let us explore the reasoning behind these individuals actions by taking a look at history. First, Bitmain has consistently supported consensus breaking alternative clients by supporting bitcoin classic, supporting Bitcoin Unlimited and its horrifically broken "emergent consensus" algorithm, responding to BIP148 with a UAHF declaration, and then once realizing that BIP148/BIP91 would be successful at activating Segwit without splitting the network Bitmain abandoned its attempt at a "UAHF", and admitted that bitcoin cash is based on the UAHF on their blog post. The very notion of attempting to compromise with an entity to prevent a split that is supporting a split is illogical by nature and a pointless exercise.
Let us not forget that Bitmain was so diametrically opposed to Segwit that it sabatoged Litecoins Segwit Activation period to prevent Segwit from activating on Litecoin. Do these actions sound like a rational actor who has the best interests of bitcoin at heart? Or does this sound like an authoritarian regime that wants to stifle information at any cost to prevent the public from seeing the benefits that SegWit provides?
But the real question must still be asked. Why? Why would Bitmain who is so focused on increasing the blocksize to reduce fee pressure delay a protocol upgrade that both increases blocksize and reduces fee pressure? If miners are financially incentivized to behave in a way in which is economically favorable to bitcoin, then why would they purposefully sabatoge protocol improvements that will increase the long term success survival of bitcoin?
There is plenty of evidence that suggests covert ASICBOOST, a mechanism in which a ASIC miner short cuts bitcoins proof of work process (grinding nonce, transaction ordering) and an innovation that Bitmain holds a patent for in China is the real reason Bitmain originally blocked SegWits activation. It was speculated by Bitcoin Core developer Gregory Maxwell that this covert asicboost technology could earn Bitmain 100 Million dollars a year.
It is notable that Hardfork proposals that Bitmain has supported, such as Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC/Bcash and now SegWit2x all preserve Bitmains covert asicboost technology while Segwit the soft fork breaks asicboosts effectiveness.
But if that is not enough of a demonstration of rational economic incentives to behave in such a way, then what about irrational reasons such a idelogical positions or pride?
Its no secret that Chinese miners dislike for bitcoin core matured when the Hong Kong agreement was broken. Many miners have consistently rationlized "firing bitcoin core developers" and we even have a direct account from a bitpay employee that said Jihan directly told him that is his purpose is to "get rid of blockstream and core developers". And while the Hong Kong agreement being broken is quite the muddied waters, there is proof in the blockchain that chinese miners were the first to break the terms of the agreement by mining a block with a alternative client. Some bitcoin core developers continued to work on HardFork proposals despite this, offering up public proposals, BIPs and released code to attempt to satisfy the terms of the agreement. Yet only in hindsight did everyone realize that no individual or individuals can force the entire bitcoin network to upgrade. It is only through the slow methodical process of social consensus building that we can get such a large decentralized global network to agree to upgrade the protocol in a safe manner. Yet to this day we still have bitter idelogical wars over this HK agreement "being broken" despite how long ago, and how clear the situation is in hindsight.
When you take into account the historical record of these individuals and businesses actions it clearly demonstrates a pattern of behavior that undermines the long term health of bitcoin. When you analyze their behavior from a rational economic viewpoint, you can clearly see that they are sabatoging the long term health of bitcoin to preserve short term profits.
Considering this information, why would other bitcoin ecosystem businesses "compromise" with such a malicious actor? Let us not forget that these actors were the entire reason we needed to compromise in the first place went ahead and forked the bitcoin network already creating the first bitcoin-shared-history altcoin, Bitcoin ABC. So we compromised with people to prevent the spliting of bitcoin, so that they could go ahead and split bitcoin? What illogical insanity is this? Why would you "stick to your guns" on an agreement that was nullified the moment Bitmain and ViaBTC supported a hardfork outside of the S2X agreement? Doubly questionably is your support when the hardfork is highly contentious and guaranteed to cause a split, damage bitcoin, create chaos and damage global confidence.
A lot of the signatories of the NYA agreement are payment processors and gateway businesses. Their financial health depends upon short term growth of bitcoin to increase business activity and shore up investors capital with revenue from that transactional growth. Their priorities are to ensure short term growth and to appease their investors. But their actions demonstrate a type of cause and effect that often occurs in markets across the world. By redistributing network resource costs to node operators they are simply shuffling costs to the public so that they can benefit in the short term without needing to allocate extra capital.
But these actions do not benefit the health of bitcoin long term. Splitting the network, once again, does not increase confidence in the bitcoin network. It does not foster growth. Increasing the blocksize after segwit already increases the blocksize will not get us any closer to VISA transaction levels from a statistical viewpoint. Increasing the TPS from 3 to 7 when we need to get to 30,000 TPS is quite an illogical decision at face value. Increasing the blocksize on-chain to get to that level would destroy any pretense at decentralization long before we even came close, and without decentralization we have no cenosorship resistence, fungibility. These are fundamental to the value of bitcoin as a network and currency. Polymath and industry wide respected crypto expert Nick Szabo has written extensively on scaling bitcoin and why layer 2 networks are essential.
To all the Signatories of the SegWit2X I ask you - What are you trying to accomplish by splitting bitcoin once again? What consensus building have you done to ensure that bitcoin wont suffer a catastrophic contentious hard fork? As it stands right now I only see a portion of the economic actors in the bitcoin ecosystem supporting S2X. No where near enough to prevent miners from supporting the legacy chain when there will be a large portion of the economy still operating on the legacy chain preserving its value. Where there is money Its going to be extremely difficult to topple the status quo/legacy network and the cards are stacked against you. Without full consensus from the majority of developers, economic actors/nodes, exchanges, payment processors, gateways, wallets....you will only fork yourself from the legacy network and reap destruction and chaos as the legacy chain and S2X battle it out.
If you truly support bitcoin and are dedicated to the long term success of bitcoin and your business, then why would you engage/compromise with demonstratably malicious actors within the bitcoin ecosystem to accomplish a goal that was designed by them to further monopolize/centralize their control, at the destruction of bitcoins security model?
Bitcoin core developers are actually positive on hardforks and want to eventually increase the legacy blocksize, they just wish to do it in a responsible manner that does not put the network at risk like SegWit2x does.
Also, it seems a rational engineering choice to optimize and compress transactions/protocols before increasing the blocksize. Things like SegWit, Schnorr, MAST are all great examples of things Bitcoin Core has done and is doing to increase on-chain scaling technology to the long term benefit of bitcoin.
The fate of bitcoin will be determined by users who choose when how and where they transact. If businesses attempt to force them on the S2X chain they will abandon those businesses to use a servicor that does not attempt through coercion to force them upon a specific forked network.
Finally, without replay protection there can be no clean split and no free market mechanism to determine the winner. I understand that this is purposefully designed this way, to force a war between the legacy chain and S2X, but if you stand for everything bitcoin stands for, then you as central actors will not try to force people onto your chain. Instead, you should allow the market to decide which chain is more valuable.
If you will not abandon this poisonous hardfork pill then please advocate/lobby to add default replay protection to the btc1 codebase. You cannot claim Free Market principals and then on the other side of your mouth collude with central actors to force protocol changes upon users. Either you believe in bitcoin, or you are here to join the miners in their poorly disguised behaviors to monopolize, subvert and sabatoge bitcoin.
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If hashpower is so important 15 november 2018, why so little written about it?

Hello,
It looks that if Bitcoin SV is not using replay protection and/or other ticker, a hash war will break out 15 November 2018. With BMG it could be Coingeek/BMG will win (what I hope because I don't like this Wormhole thing), but who knows for sure? Time is running out. There are enough stats showing which (recent) blocks have been mined by whom, but this does not say that much about hash capacity, since miners might switch close to 15 November, also from btc (some old pain of August 2017 fork might play role here). In any case, from a Japanese site (unfortunately I lost address) I saw graph of distribution of hash power (could be different than distribution of mined blocks) and that didn't look that good to me for Bitcoin SV. Also when you look to recent charts of who has mined most blocks, it seems that that Jihan Wu's Bitmain (=BTC.com +Antpool) plus bitcoin.com (Roger Ver I suppose, not such a fan of Craig anymore I think) plus ViaBTC (with Haipo Wang, don't think a fan of Craig Wright either) plus BTC.top (don't know exactly who these are, but is Chinese as well) can outrun Bitcoin SV in a hash war quite easily for the longest chain. Perhaps using the Cobra client with a hardfork, replay protection and new ticker can be a plan B, and can take over the plans of making 128 MB block without Wormholes and without possible CTOR after 15 november? Please share your thoughts.
Best Regards,
Lone Wolf
submitted by LoneBitcoinWolf to btc [link] [comments]

Adam Back is trying to get miners to sign a letter to never run Classic

Because that didn’t work out, he got it “diminished” to the one below. It is rumored that this letter will be signed by certain miners in the next 24 hours. This letter is based on misinformation and scaremongering, and the risks are completely exaggerated. It seems Core really does not want any competition and is trying to pull every trick in the book as a last resort. Unfortunately, it seems some miners are believing their BS.
Note: Bitmainwarranty is not Bitmain. They are not miners.
Some of the people I heard are going to sign are:
Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” - the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. there is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agree on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.
The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoins is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.
submitted by DailyXP to btc [link] [comments]

AntPool is now the biggest BTC and LTC mining pool

AntPool surpassed F2Pool in October and is now the biggest Bitcoin and Litecoin mining pool.
submitted by chain_rocks to litecoin [link] [comments]

Is the fact that bitcoin's global hashrate doesn't seem to be dropping after the halving the ultimate proof that mining is as centralized as it gets?

Based on the current outlook, even the most profitable publicly available miner couldn't see any profit in about 2 years (Antminer S9 profitability calcuation here). Home mining truly has no future in terms of profitability. Yet the hashrate didn't drop after the halving. Why would that be?
Well, we never got to know much about chips that were never publicly sold and even Bitmain's new miner was really expensive at launch and understocked to a point that it seemed that the public sale was just a stunt. BW, bitfury (and perhaps other companies too) were claiming to have chips more efficient that the one Bitmain used in their latest miner long before it was even released. It's likely that such chips fulfilled custom orders for companies with datacenters of epic proportions like the ones of bitbank, HaoBTC and BW (who have their own chips).
It would be safe to assume that those datacenters are mining on profit as we speak and were prepared for the halving long before it happened. Because not only are they running on custom mining equipment, but electricity costs are dirt cheap compared to home power.
Even the hashrate distribution in the biggest pool is quite telling. Large-scale miners hold so much hashing power that it's off the charts (inb4: NOT LOGSCALE!!!!1...).
And given that (supposedely competing) Chinese companies that focus on bitcoin mining basically advertise each other, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that pools are basically a facade and there's just a handful of people that control what's known as bitcoin mining.
submitted by butterNcois to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Market Reaction to Bitcoin Unlimited

Two days ago, AntPool (currently the largest pool) began signalling Bitcoin Unlimited support. Threads to acknowledge and discuss this climbed to the top of both /Bitcoin (e.g. this one) and /btc (e.g. this one).
The market has reacted extremely negatively to this development. I have taken a moment to mark the event on the charts of a few different exchanges:
Bitstamp / Bitstamp (zoom)
Bitfinex / Bitfinex (zoom)
OKCoin / OKCoin (zoom)
As these charts demonstrate, there has been very little activity and volume recently as the market has been consolidating (presumably in preparation for the SEC's imminent decision on the COIN ETF).
Shortly after the BU signalling began by AntPool, however, the price began to plummet and volume has jumped considerably.
Very little has occurred in the past 72 hours other than the AntPool event. It is possible (though unlikely) that this is a mere coincidence, but...
Occam's Razor, common sense, and a rational assessment of the matter all point to one thing: the market, on the whole, is extremely displeased with AntPool's decision.
I have also crossposted this to BitcoinMarkets, in case you would prefer to discuss this over there.
submitted by thieflar to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Argument Against Proof of Stake (PoS) by Michael Stollaire

The Argument Against Proof of Stake (PoS) by Michael Stollaire
Recently, I’ve been interviewed several times, and it’s an eventuality that the topic of how Verge stacks up against the competition in the privacy coin space comes up. The first thing I consider is the method of mining. In short, if Proof of Stake (PoS) is leveraged, that’s it for me. That asset is compromised, and most of Verge’s competition is PoS. I actually had a representative from one of Verge’s competitors tell me that PoS “is the future.” My response was that I was afraid of what the future held. Here’s why I consider PoS the death toll for a cryptocurrency: PoS uses a form of Dash’s Master Node concept. Someone has to have One-thousand (1,000) Dash coins that they “stake” by essentially putting it into a deposit box of sorts. If at any time, the deposit box does not have 1,000 coins in it, the Dash system detects this fact, and your Master Node is disabled. Well, this is a good situation if you were one of the first people involved in any PoS cryptocurrency, when coins cost $1 or less at the time or you were one of the original miners. However, what if you were not an ultra-early adopter? You are in deep trouble. Keeping with our Dash example, the current price for Dash is just over $300, so let’s use that round number in our calculations. One-thousand (1,000) Dash coins at $300 each would be $300,000. That’s right. You can have your very own Dash Master Node for the bargain price of… wait a second. The average price of a house in America is cheaper. Who can afford that?! I’ll tell you who. The one-percenters and the financial establishments that cryptocurrency was invented in January 2009 to thwart. That’s right, just like there are activist investors that buy up 10-25% of a public company’s stock so they can leverage their… you guessed it… STAKE… against the company itself, in order to control who the CEO is, who sits on the board of directors, and the general direction and activities of a company, the rich of the world can basically perform a hostile takeover of any cryptocurrency that leverages PoS for mining purposes. Here’s an example, Warren Buffett, who’s current net worth is $80.3 Billion. There are currently 4,719 Dash Master Nodes online. As we said before the approximate cost of a Dash Master Node is $300,000 each, so let’s have some math fun, shall we? $300,000 X 5,000 = $1.5 Billion. So, Mr. Buffett wakes up one day, and decides that cryptocurrency should play a minor part in his investment portfolio, and he plunks down $1.5 Billion to take over Dash. Since Verge’s other competitors that leverage PoS for mining cost significantly less, it’s that much easier for Mr. Buffett… or any wealthy individual to compromise any of them. Therefore, I would never consider investing in a PoS coin. So, we are now down to three (3) Proof of Work (PoW) assets: Verge, Monero and Bitcoin. Bitcoin is out, because of two reasons. Some might say that the hostile takeover of Bitcoin already took place, as China controls so much of Bitcoin’s PoW hash rate. Please reference the pie chart below. Bitmain’s AntPool is 22.3% of Bitcoin’s total hash rate by itself.
https://blockchain.info/pools
Also, since Bitcoin is “sort of anonymous” it cannot stack up against Verge, which is a true privacy cryptocurrency that has features now - and in the future… - that will make it the premier asset in this area. Again, in my opinion. Verge also leverages several different PoW mining algorithms to make sure that the chances are slim to none that a hash rate monopoly can take place. Transactions are faster by far, and transactions per second are twenty (20) times that of Bitcoin. The mobility feature of Verge are also secure and private, and… well, that’s it. I don’t really have to go any further, because we can logically deduce that Verge is superior to Bitcoin in several ways. Therefore, only Monero, ZCash and Verge are left. There has been several deep-dives done on Monero, as far as due diligence of their privacy and security features are concerned that bring up valid points about the lack of Monero’s privacy: http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/04/19/monero-linkability After the implementation of the much-anticipated Wraith Protocol™, most would agree that Verge is on equal-footing with Monero, regarding privacy and security features, if not slightly better, and Verge is just getting started. There’s much more to come in the near and distant future, I assure you. However, back to Monero. Another key element of an asset is whether or not it is an inflationary or deflationary currency. Bitcoin has a limit on the sheer number of coins minted, for instance, and so does Verge. They are deflationary currencies that will hold or increase their value over time. But, Monero (and PIVX) has an unlimited supply, just like fiat currencies such as the US Dollar. That means as time goes on, more and more Monero coins will be minted and its value will decrease. Right there, it’s game over, at least for me. However, I do have to point out that Verge has Toi2P “baked in” and this means that both sender and receiver IP addresses are obfuscated. Does Monero do that? No, it does not. On to ZCash. Well, it’s got its fair share of issues. Over six-hundred, it seems: https://github.com/zcash/zcash/issues However, the main issue for me is that they basically had an ICO, just like NAV and PIVX, etc. If you don’t have an issue with 20% or more of the entire supply of an asset going to line the pockets of its initial investors and team, you certainly should. Here’s how one blogger on Steemit put it: “The ZCash team decided to launch ZCash as an altcoin so they were able to fund the development: ZCash has a US-based company behind it and will tax 20% of the mining revenue during the first 4 years to pay off private investors. If ZCash were to succeed, the private investors will benefit greatly from the launch of this cryptocurrency. Although I don't like ICO's, a public coinsale (a form of crowdfunding) would have been a more fair and open way to fund development than seeking money from private investors.” Also… “Another problem with ZCash is the fact that it's brand new cryptography. Nobody can really guarantee that there aren't some bugs in the system that will make it possible to deanonymize transactions or create coins out of thin air. What's more, if coins are being created, it will not even be detectable because, unlike Monero (and Verge), you can't verify the total amount of coins in the ZCash blockchain.” Verge had no pre-mine. Verge had no ICO. The entire Verge Team is composed of pro-bono volunteers, including yours truly. That’s right. We work for free. Why? Because that’s how much sheer belief we have in Verge and we don’t have a “golden parachute” end game like those involved with ZCash. Does ZCash have a multi-algorithm mining methodology to prevent the platform being controlled by a few centralized GPU-based mining farms? No it does not. They can be taken over, just like Bitcoin. Now, there is only one coin standing: Verge. by Michael Stollaire October 31, 2017
submitted by TBISINC to TBIS [link] [comments]

Bitmain subsidiary Antpool accused of artificially boosting Bitcoin Cash (BCH) price (current BTC/USD price is $9347.85)

Latest Bitcoin News:
Bitmain subsidiary Antpool accused of artificially boosting Bitcoin Cash (BCH) price
Other Related Bitcoin Topics:
Bitcoin Price | Blockchain | ICOs
The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools. Follow us on Twitter @CoinSalad.
submitted by coinsaladcom to CoinSalad [link] [comments]

Why raising the block size limit won't increase mining centralization

1) This is one o