Bitcoin Mining Rigs Struggle for Profits, Despite BTC's ...

Bitcoin Mining Forums: Turning Computers Into Cash Since 2011

The official bitcoin mining forum / subreddit / chat room / place to be!
[link]

Litecoin mining!

Since the litecoin community is growing, I've decided to introduce /litecoinmining, a place for all discussion revolving mining litecoins!
[link]

Bitcoin Mining – Hardware & Software Is Profitable – How To Start – Free App – Legal Wiki Rig Miner

Bitcoin Mining – Hardware & Software Is Profitable – How To Start – Free App – Legal Wiki Rig Miner submitted by Rufflenator to 3bitcoins [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining – Hardware & Software Is Profitable – How To Start – Free App – Legal Wiki Rig Miner

Bitcoin Mining – Hardware & Software Is Profitable – How To Start – Free App – Legal Wiki Rig Miner submitted by ososru to Bitcoin4free [link] [comments]

My collection of amazing early Bitcoin comments, right here from Reddit:

On buying (or not) a gaming rig to mine Bitcoin:
With the difficulty skyrocketing and exchange rates sitting stagnant at $5~8 for the last week or so, you pretty much missed the boat to buy dedicated mining hardware, IMHO. If you already have the hardware, or are looking for an excuse to buy a couple bitchin' new graphics cards for a gaming rig, there's definitely money to be made mining when you're not using it.
But I don't think I'd drop $1k into a rig that's only to mine with unless it was $1k I'd blow on something even more retarded. I certainly wouldn't sink next month's rent into it.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuv1b/?context=1
On easily cashing out Bitcoin using mtgox:
I think getting money is not that difficult. The daily volume on mtgox is over $100K, so I think anyone can currently sell Bitcoins for USD without problems.
https://reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/_/c1wuhjh/?context=1
On it being $10:
Is Bitcoin 10 usd yet?
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hpq6c/is_bitcoin_10_usd_yet/
Bonus: Snapshot of the isbitcoin10usdyet website from 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110606125320/http://www.isbitcoin10usdyet.com/
Mtgox might disappear:
400K bitcoins is $4M dollars. Given all risks and uncertainties around bitcoins, no wonder some of the early founders exit their investments. Tomorrow mtgox or dwolla may disappear. It is the matter of one government intervention.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hq1wj/_/c1xgesq/?context=1
Bitcoin is terrible at friendly front-end:
This is a dangerous point-of-view. The entire bitcoin ecosystem is ugly, confusing, and deeply unusable. Really think about the questions posed in the article. The client works, as in, it creates a functional front-end for some bitcoin-related tasks, but it isn't at all designed for how humans would want to interact with the currency. The point of the article isn't that the client is hard, it's that the client works pretty well for obsessive nerds (present company included), but if bitcoin is really going to succeed at the goals it sets out to accomplish, it needs to not only be usable by normal people, it needs to be exceptional. If you think it's reasonably usable, you're welcome to that opinion, but please understand that you're the exact sort of person Mr. Falkvinge was referring to. Great with complex logic, terrible at friendly front-end.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xtfuy/?context=1
On wallets going out of sync:
One thing that I think is lacking is the ability to functionally use wallets on different machines as they will tend to get out of sync. This might be able to be overcome if new addresses were deterministically created from a seed contained in the wallet, but there are probably better ways.
Also, the UI for the official client is kind of a bone.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1y730k/?context=1
On Bitcoin’s ease of use:
In fact, BTC is in such an infant state right now only enthusiasts investors, and geeks who can actually grasp how the system truly works, are using it for real.
The usability issues raised by the article are real. No grandma, or any well respected enterprise for that matter, would accept working with this type of GUI. If anything, a REAL enterprise backend still needs to be developed to handle the BTC's ungly guts, with all transactions details, hashes, mining, wallets, proxy connections, peer discovery via IRC channels... I mean... this is all too RAW for the end user. I can see a near future where startups will begin to offer user friendly GUIs, online access, maybe even online banking for your bitcoin accounts, automated backups and safety mechanisms to protect your coins in case of theft.
All of us geeks will end up supporting the bootstrap of this network so that, later on, your grandma will be able to use this just as she would use a credit card today.
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hrqpm/_/c1xungz/?context=1
rBitcoin is not a sub for memes:
This isnt a subreddit for memes. Take it back to pics
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/i7z0v/_/c21m3ld/?context=1
I think I’ll keep my money elsewhere:
This further reinforces BC's image as nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. When the distribution is skewed that heavily towards early adopters, they will have almost total control over the market. Those 32 could manipulate to their hearts content. I think I'll keep my money elsewhere....
https://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ifl26/_/c23e3ei/?context=1
Tulip mania:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania
https://www.reddit.com/AskReddit/comments/hnp7f/i_just_invested_half_of_my_next_months_rent_in/c1wuhkt/
submitted by wisequote to btc [link] [comments]

Recap on CoinEx & Avalanche AMA Aug 5, 2020

Recap on CoinEx & Avalanche AMA Aug 5, 2020
Written by SatoshisAngels
Published by read.cash
On August 5th 2020, Satoshi’s Angels hosted an AMA for CoinEx on “How BCH and Avalanche Are Bringing Financial Freedom to 6 Billion People” on a Chinese platform Bihu. During the 100-minute event, Haipo Yang of ViaBTC and CoinEx, and Emin Gun Sirer of AVA Labs shared their in-depth views on such topics as different consensus mechanisms, community governance, IPFS, Defi. And Haipo explained why he wants to fork BCH. This is the full text.
You can check out the full AMA here (mostly in Chinese with some English translation).

https://preview.redd.it/x790bw58axf51.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=03c8af942f8f14d98d5dd693adf9e2a50448d61d
Cindy Wang (Satoshi’s Angels): There are news saying that you are to fork BCH. Is it a marketing makeover? Are you serious about it?
Haipo Yang: It’s definitely not a marketing makeover. But the details are not decided yet.
Over the past three years, the BCH community has gone through multiple discussions from reducing block time, changing mining algorithms, adding smart contracts, etc. But none of these disputes have been well settled.
BCH is a big failure in terms of governance. A lack of good governance has made it fall in disorder. It is too decentralized to make progress.
You may know that the first BCH block was mined by ViaBTC. And we gave a lot of support to it indeed. But we didn’t dominate the fork. The Chinese community in particular thought I had a lot of influence, but it was not true.
I think the whole community is very dissatisfied with Bitcoin ABC, but it is difficult to replace them or change the status quo. So I am thinking of creating a new branch of BCH. The idea is still in early stage. I welcome anyone interested to participate and discuss it with me.
Wang: Professor Emin, what’s your attitude to fork? Do you think it’s a good timing to fork BCH?
Emin Gun Sirer: I am a big fan of BCH. It adheres to the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. I like the technical roadmap of BCH. But just like what Haipo mentioned, BCH lacks a good governance mechanism. There are always something that can cause BCH community to divide itself.
But I think it’s not enough to just have a good governance mechanism. There are many good proposals in the community but failed to be adopted in the end. I think BCH needs social leadership to encourage discussion when there are new proposals.
Wang: We are all curious to know How Avalanche got its name?
I know that Avalanche doesn’t mean well in Chinese. But in English, it’s a very powerful word. Avalanche represents a series of algorithms piling together like a mountain. When decisions slowly form, the ball (nodes in the network) on top of the mountain starts going down the hill on one side, and it gets bigger and bigger, and like an avalanche and it becomes unstoppable, making the transaction final.
Wang: Prof. Emin, I know that you are a big blocker. Have you ever considered implementing Avalanche based on BCH? Why create another chain?
Sirer: Of course I considered that. Satoshi Nakamoto consensus is wonderful, but the proof-of-work mechanism and Nakamoto consensus base protocols have some shortcomings, such as network latency, and it is hard to scale. Avalanche, instead, is totally different, and is the new biggest breakthrough in the past 45 years. It is flexible, fast, and scalable. I’d love to implement BCH on top of avalanche in the future, to make BCH even better by making 0-conf transactions much more secure.
Wang: As an old miner, why did CoinEx Chain choose to “abandon” POW, and turn to POS mechanism?
Haipo: Both POW and POS consensus algorithms have their own advantages. POW is not just a consensus algorithm, but also a more transparent and open distribution method of digital currency. Anyone can participate in it through mining.
POW is fairer. For a POS-based network, participants must have coins. For example, you need to invest ICO projects to obtain coins. But developers can get a lot of coins almost for free. In addition, POW is more open. Anyone can participate without holding tokens. For example, as long as you have a computer and mining rigs, you can participate in mining. Openness and fairness are two great features of POW. POS is more advanced, safe and efficient.
POS is jointly maintained by the token holders, and there is no problem of 51% attacks. Those who hold tokens are more inclined to protect the network than to destroy the network for their own interests. To disrupt the network, you need to buy at least two-thirds of the token, which is very difficult to achieve. And when you actually hold so many coins, it’s barely possible for you to destroy the network.
POW has the problem of 51% attack. For example, ETC just suffered the 51% attack on August 3. And the cost to do that is very low. It can be reorganized with only tens of thousands of dollars. This is also a defect of POW.
In addition, in terms of TPS and block speed, POS can achieve second-level speed and higher TPS. Therefore, CoinEx Chain chose POS because it can bring a faster transaction experience. This is very important for decentralized exchanges. Both POW and POS have their own advantages. It’s a matter of personal choice. When choosing a consensus mechanism, the choice must be made according to the characteristics of the specific project.
https://preview.redd.it/upbayijaaxf51.jpg?width=1055&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=703e3b6a493a76f86bc9045e784d174bde9d3c42
Wang: Ethereum is switching to ETH 2.0. If they succeed, do you think it will lead the next bull market?
Sirer: If Ethereum 2.0 can be realized, it must be a huge success.
But I doubt it can be launched anytime soon considering that it has been constantly delayed. And even if it comes out, I am not so sure if it will address the core scaling problem. And the main technology in Ethereum 2.0 is sharding. Sharding technology divides the Ethereum networks into small parallel groups, but I think what will happen is everyone wants to be in the same “shard” so the sharding advantages might not be realizable in Ethereum 2.0.
Avalanche supports Ethereum’s virtual machine, and Avalanche can realize 1 second level confirmation, while with sharding finalizing confirmation takes 5–6 seconds at best. Avalanche approach to make Ethereum scale is superior to Ethereum 2.0. There are many big players behind Ethereum 2.0, and I wish them success. But I believe that Avalanche will be the fastest and best Smart Contract platform in the crypto space, and it is compatible with Ethereum.
Wang: Why is Avalanche a real breakthrough?
Sirer: Avalanche is fundamentally different from previous consensus mechanisms. It’s very fast with TPS surpasses 6500, which is three times that of VISA. Six confirmations can be achieved in one second. Compared with the POW mechanism of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, Avalanche’s participation threshold is very low. It allows multiple virtual machines to be built on the Avalanche protocol.
Avalanche is not created to compete with Bitcoin or fiat currencies such as the US dollar and RMB. It’s not made to compete with Ethereum, which is defined as the “world’s computer”. Avalanche is positioned to be an asset issuance platform to tokenize assets in the real world.
Wang: How do you rank the importance of community, development, governance, and technology to a public chain?
Sirer: These four are like the legs of a table. Every foot is very important. The table cannot stand without strong support.
A good community needs to be open to welcome developers and people. Good governance is especially important, to figure out what users need and respect their voices. Development needs to be decentralized. Avalanche has developers all over the world. And it has big companies building on top of Avalanche.
Yang: From a long-term perspective, I think governance is the most important thing, which is the same as running a company.
In the long run, technology is not important. Blockchain technology is developed based on an open source softwares that are free to the community. Community is also not the most important factor.
I think the most important thing is governance. Decentralization is more about technical. For example, Bitcoin, through a decentralized network method, ensures the openness and transparency of data assets, and the data on the chain cannot be tampered with, ensuring that the total amount of coins has a fixed upper limit.
But at the governance level, all coins are centralized at some degree. For example, BCH developers can decide to modify the protocol. In a sense, it is the same as managing a company.
Historically, the reasons for the success and failure of companies all stem from bad governance. For example, Apple succeeded based on Steve Jobs’s charisma, leadership and the pursuit of user experience. When Jobs was kicked out, Apple suffered great losses. After Jobs returned, he made Apple great again.
Issues behind Bitmain is also about governance. Simply put, governance requires leaders who have a longer-term vision and are more capable of coordinating and balancing the resources and interests of all parties to lead the community.
In the blockchain world, many people focus on technology. In fact, technology is not enough to make great products. User experience is most important. Users don’t care about the blockchain technology itself, but more concerned about whether it is easy to use and whether it can solve my problem.
We need to figure out how to deliver a product like Apple. The pursuit of user experience is also governance in nature. And governance itself lies in the soul of key leaders in the community.
Realize tokenization of assets in.
https://preview.redd.it/14jf1bvcaxf51.jpg?width=1082&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c312912142c38de986f42912086e205354162190
Wang: Speaking of asset tokenization, I would like to ask Haipo, do you think the market for assets on the chain is big?
Yang: It must be very big. We need to see which assets can be tokenized.
Assets that can be tokenized are standardized assets, sush as currencies and securities.
  1. In terms of currency, Tether has issued over 10 billion U.S. dollars. Many people think that’s too much. But I think this market is underestimated. The market for stablecoins in the future must be hundreds of billions or even trillions, especially after the release of Facebook’s Libra. Even US dollar might be issued based on the blockchain in the future.
At present, the settlement of USD currency is through the SWIFT system. But the SWIFT system itself is only a clearing network, a messaging system, not a settlement network. It takes a long time for clearing and settlement, and it is not reliable. But both USDT and USDC can quickly realize cross-border transfers in seconds and realize asset delivery. Even sovereign currencies are likely to be issued on the blockchain. I believe RMB also has such a plan.
  1. Equity and securities markets are the largest market. But they have strict requirements for market access.
Whether a stock is listed on A-shares or in the American markets, it’s hard to obtain them. I believe that the blockchain can completely release the demand through decentralization. It can allow any tiny company or even a project to issue, circulate and finance a token.
There may be only tens of thousands of stocks currently traded globally. There are also tens of thousands of tokens in the crypto space. I believe that millions or more of assets will be traded and circulated in the future. This can only be realized through decentralized technology and organization.
The market for assets tokenization will be huge. And at present, the entire blockchain technology is still very primitive. Bitcoin and Ethereum only have a few or a dozen TPS, which is far from meeting market demand. This is why CoinEx is committed to building a decentralized Dex public chain.
Wang: Avalanche’s paper was first published on IPFS. What do you think of IPFS?
Sirer: I personally like IPFS very much. It is a decentralized storage solution.
Yang: There is no doubt that IPFS solves the problem of decentralized storage, and can be robust in the blockchain world, and can replace HPPT services. But there are still three problems:
  1. IPFS is not for ordinary users. Everybody needs BCH and BTC, but only developers need IPFS, which is a relatively niche market;
  2. IPFS is more expensive than traditional storage solutions, which further reduces its practicality. In order to achieve decentralization, more copies must be stored, and more hardware devices must be consumed. In the end, these costs will be on to users.
  3. There may be compliance issues. If you use IPFS to store sensitive information, such as info from WikiLeaks, it may end up threatening national security. I doubt that decentralized storage and decentralized public chains can survive under the joint pressure of global governments.
The IPFS project solves certain problems. But from the perspective of application prospects, I am pessimistic.
Wang: What do you think of Defi?
Yang: I want to talk about the concept first.
Broadly speaking, the entire blockchain industry is DeFi in nature. Blockchain is to realize the circulation of currency, equity, and asset value through decentralization.
So in a broad sense, blockchain itself is DeFi. In a narrow sense, DeFi is a financial agreement based on smart contracts. DeFi, through smart contracts, can build applications more flexibly. For example, before we could only use Bitcoin to transfer and pay. Now with smart contracts, flexible functions such as lending, exchange, mortgage , etc. are available. The entire blockchain industry is gradually evolving under the conditions of DeFi. DeFi will definitely get greater development in the future.
Sirer: I think Defi will definitely have a huge impact. DeFi is not only an innovation in the cryptocurrency field, but also an innovation in the financial field. Wall Street companies have stagnated for years with no innovation. Avalanche fits different DeFi needs, including performance and compliance. In the future, not only will Wall Street simply adopt DeFi, but DeFi will grow into a huge market that will eventually replace the traditional financial system.
Questions from the community:
1. How does Avalanche integrate with DeFi?
Sirer: At present, all DeFi applications on Avalanche have surpassed Ethereum. What can be achieved on Ethereum can be achieved on Avalanche with better user experience. We are currently connecting with popular DeFi projects such as Compound and MakerDao to add part of or all of their functions.
At present, Avalanche is working on decentralized exchange (DEX). The current DEXs are limited by speed and performance but when they are built on top of Avalanche it will be real-time and very fast.
2. How many developers does BCH have?
Yang: I think it does not matter how many developers there are. What matters is what should be developed. I watched Jobs’ video the other day, and it inspired me a lot. We are not piecing together technology to see what technology can do. It’s we figure out what we want first and then we use the technology we need.
The entire blockchain community worship developers. Such as they call Vitalik “V God”. It’s not necessary to treat developers as wizards. Developers are programmers, and I myself is also a programmer.
ViaBTC has a development team of over 100 people, including core members from Copernicus (a dev team formerly belonged to Bitmain). Technically we are very confident to build faster, stabler, and better user experience products.
submitted by CoinExcom to btc [link] [comments]

What Is Bitcoin? What is bitcoin Mining?

Bitcoin Overview
Bitcoin is digital-currency, It is known as the cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is a widely used cryptocurrency. It is one of the most secure cryptocurrencies in the world. It doesn't govern by a central bank or any government. Here you don't need to pay high transaction fees while you are making a transaction over the bitcoin network. Here your privacy is also hidden. So no one knows who transferring fund to whom. This is the main reason why people start taking an interest in bitcoin. From the researcher, It is the future of the digital currency.
What Is Bitcoin Mining? Why It Is Important?
Bitcoin mining is the process done by miners from the world. Miners can participate in mining to secure the whole bitcoin network. Miners confirm the transaction over a bitcoin network called blockchain and regularly update to the bitcoin ledger called a blockchain. This process is done by powerful bitcoin mining hardware such as GPUs, AICS' chips, Mining Rigs, etc. Mining hardware help to solve a complex mathematical problem. If miners successfully solve the problem then they rewarded with newly generated bitcoins. The current reward is 12.5 BTC + Transaction fees.
What Is Bitcoin Cloud Mining? List Of Best Free Cloud Mining Website
If you don't want to invest in costly mining hardware then here is the solution. You can participate in the bitcoin mining cloud. Here mining hardware is maintained by mining companies. You just need to purchase hardware on lease or hashing power on rent. Then you participate in bitcoin mining using mining hardware & mining software. Rest of the things done by mining companies.
If you are interested in bitcoin mining? I highly recommended to join Global Mining, It is one of the best bitcoin mining service provider. The regularly maintain hardware and also get 24/7 support from their efficient support team. This is one of the best free cloud mining company which provides everything in a transparent way. You bitcoin is 100% secure and it is a trustworthy bitcoin mining company.
You can find more info about bitcoin or bitcoin mining from here Wikipedia, Bitcoin.it, Bitcoinwiki.org
submitted by anneandersn8 to u/anneandersn8 [link] [comments]

Burstcoin Is A Robust And Unique Cryptocurrency: Proof of Capacity (PoC) Ensures Decentralization, Energy Efficiency, And Low Barrier To Entry

http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/burstcoin-is-a-robust-and-unique-cryptocurrency-proof-of-capacity-poc-ensures-decentralization-energy-efficiency-and-low-barrier-to-entry/
Decentralization is perhaps the fundamental reason why Bitcoin has been successful. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, its network cannot be controlled by any government, corporation, or other centralized entity, and this is why Bitcoin still exists to this day rather than being shutdown a long time ago. Bitcoin achieves decentralization through its Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm, where miners around the world cryptographically hash transactions into blocks and receive block rewards for their efforts, and nodes constantly check to ensure that all confirmed transactions are following consensus rules.
The major caveat with PoW is it is energy intensive. This has especially become a problem due to the rapid rise in Bitcoin’s price long term, which has resulted in an arms race of sorts to amass the most hashing power in order to obtain the most mining profits. Indeed, the Bitcoin hash rate has risen orders of magnitude, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now up to its all-time high so far of 84 EH/s. This represents exponentially more computing resources and energy consumption.
This is a problem for two reasons. First off, there is a very high barrier to entry for new users to mine Bitcoin. It requires thousands of dollars of mining equipment to make any worthwhile profit from mining Bitcoin.
Secondly, Bitcoin mining consumes a massive amount of energy worldwide. It is estimated by Digiconomist that Bitcoin mining uses 73.12 TWh of energy annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire country of Austria, or 0.33% of total global electricity consumption. This releases nearly 35 Megatons of Carbon Dioxide annually, contributing to global warming, aside from other environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels and manufacturing mining equipment. Digiconomist may be an overestimate of Bitcoin’s environmental impact, but it is somewhere in the ballpark.
Numerous alternative cryptocurrencies have tried to be environmentally friendly via using the Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm, but this sacrifices decentralization, since all the voting rights end up concentrated into the hands of developers and major bag holders.
This is where Proof of Capacity (PoC), formerly called Proof of Space, comes in. Instead of using specialized Bitcoin mining equipment, PoC simply uses hard drive space to mine cryptocurrency. Burstcoin (BURST) is the #1 PoC cryptocurrency. Bitcoin HD (BHD) is another PoC cryptocurrency, but it has a highly centralized supply with 3.1 million out of 5 million total coins in the hands of the developers, so it is nonsensical to choose BHD considering that BURST has a highly decentralized supply. The problem with a centralized supply is it can cause a coin’s value to collapse long term due to developers dumping on the market.
In order to start mining BURST, a user simply allocates part of their hard drive, and this area of hard drive is plotted. Plotting is a 1-time hashing cycle where the hard drive is filled with cryptographic hashes via the Shabal cryptographic algorithm. The node also has to synchronize with the BURST blockchain before mining. Fortunately, the BURST blockchain is less than 9 GB, versus the Bitcoin blockchain which is nearly 240 GB.
Once plotting and synchronization is complete the user can begin mining. During each mining round the plot file is searched to find the correct cryptographic hash for the block, and when the correct hash is found the user receives a block reward. Essentially, the hashes in the plot file can be thought of as lottery tickets, and the bigger the size of the plot, meaning the more hard drive space dedicated to mining BURST, the more likely it is to find the correct hash.
Like with Bitcoin mining, users can join pools so that even if they have a small amount of hard drive space they can still earn BURST at a steady pace.
Since BURST’s PoC algorithm simply reads a hard drive versus the intense computational work of Bitcoin’s PoW, BURST mining uses a negligible amount of electricity. It is estimated that each BURST transaction consumes 0.0024 KWh of electricity, versus about 1,000 KWh used for each Bitcoin transaction.
Aside from being far more environmentally friendly, electricity costs are negligible for BURST miners, so BURST miners earn nearly 100% profit. This opens the door for users with any level of technology to profitably mine BURST, including personal computers and technically even cell phones. Compare this to Bitcoin where mining with even a powerful personal computer is impossible.
Ultimately, BURST’s energy efficiency makes the barrier to entry very low, a user simply needs to have hard drive space to mine BURST. This results in the BURST network being highly decentralized.
Notably, miners do not have to buy any special equipment to mine BURST, they just use spare hard drive space that was sitting unused, versus Bitcoin mining where specialized hardware that costs thousands of dollars is required. Bitcoin mining rigs often become obsolete with time, and also have no other use besides Bitcoin mining, whereas hard drive space used for BURST mining never becomes obsolete and can easily be freed up and used for storage by deleting the plot file.
In summary, BURST is one of the most unique and fundamentally robust cryptocurrencies due to its PoC algorithm, which ensures decentralization while simultaneously guaranteeing energy efficiency and a low barrier for miner entry.
submitted by turtlecane to burstcoin [link] [comments]

Regarding Threads on Bitmain and ASIC Resistance (Mega Thread!)

Guys,
Let’s take a minute to talk about what’s going on. We need to make sure all users are on the same page and the falsifications and assumptions stop.
I'm with you, and I understand that you feel betrayed. However, cleaning up after the constant bickering for those pro-fork and those anti-fork is growing tiresome. It's time we have a civil discussion and talk about facts.

Timeline of events

On 03/31/2018, a user from Ethfans.org posted a video on Telegram of a supposed Ethash ASIC. The video made its way to /Ethermining in a thread. It is important to mention that these values can be modified by changing “get_miner_status.cgi” and “minerStatus.cgi” and that there has been no credible evidence that has popped up in the nine days following the release of the supposed leak. Additionally, the following abnormalities should be noted:
Also on 3/31/2018, a user on Russian site Bits.media noticed that the pre-order for the Bitmain E3 was already up. It was believed to be an April fools joke; needless to say, it wasn’t.
On 04/02/2018, Bitmain launched the E3 and began taking pre-orders for a June delivery. At that time, the price was $800 and promised a hashing power of 180MH/s at 800 watts.
On 04/06/2018, Ethereum core developers decided against hard-forking Ethereum at this time, as they weren't convinced that it would positively impact the community given a hard-fork's disruption and the unknown of how the ASIC worked (specifically if it was programmable). The community became upset over broken promises of ASIC resistance, and this has since spread to a full out finger pointing of who is wrong.
On 04/08/2018, an apparently forged photo showed up showing a higher-hashing ASIC with far less power consumption. This is not only very unlikely, but the link in the photo was gibberish, whereas the E3's link was valid. We're writing that one up as FUD.

The "ASIC Resistance" Argument

At this point, I think that it’s I think it's important that we visit some key points of the Ethereum project. A lot of people have been quoting the whitepaper, calling ETH ASIC-proof and implying that the developers do not care about the problem.
In actuality, Ethereum never promised that it would be ASIC-proof, merely that it would provide an economic incentive to be resistant to the development of an ASIC. I'd like to produce a quote from the Ethereum Wiki, found here.
Ultimately, perfect ASIC resistance is impossible; there are always portions of circuits that are going to be unused by any specific algorithm and that can be trimmed to cut costs in a specialized device. However, what we are looking for is not perfect ASIC resistance but rather economic ASIC resistance.
...
The problem is that measuring an economy in a secure way is a difficult problem. The most obvious metric that the system has access to is mining difficulty, but mining difficulty also goes up with Moore's law and in the short term with ASIC development, and there is no known way to estimate the impact of Moore's law alone and so the currency cannot know if its difficulty increased by 10x due to better hardware, a larger user volume or a combination of both. Other metrics, such as transaction count, are potentially gameable by entities that want the supply to change in a particular direction (generally, holders want a lower supply, miners want a higher supply).
This is solidified by revisiting the whitepaper, specifically the section which identifies how ASICs will be economically stymied:
This model is untested, and there may be difficulties along the way in avoiding certain clever optimizations when using contract execution as a mining algorithm. However, one notably interesting feature of this algorithm is that it allows anyone to "poison the well", by introducing a large number of contracts into the blockchain specifically designed to stymie certain ASICs. The economic incentives exist for ASIC manufacturers to use such a trick to attack each other. Thus, the solution that we are developing is ultimately an adaptive economic human solution rather than purely a technical one.
So with the Ethereum team providing only an economic reason to not develop an ASIC since the beginning, there has been no lie.

Second batch of E3s will not be profitable with Ethereum

As a response to the developers announcing that they are not initiating a hard fork, Bitmain raised the price of the second batch of E3s to $1800. With a PSU ($105) and shipping costs ($225), plus duty fees ($25). That brings each E3 up to $2,155, or $11.97 per MH.
Comparatively, this is like paying $300 per GPU ($1800) plus Mobo/PSU/risers ($355). I have built rigs with similar hashrates for under $1,900 ($10.50 per MH).
If we speculate that Casper is as close as we think (see below), coupled with the rising difficulty, the second batch of E3s are not likely to break-even with Ethereum as a whole. If ETH rises to its ATH, the second batch units may be profitable. Tis the risk of mining.

Current speculation:

  • ASICs are bad!
    • In the Ethereum mining community, ASICs to be viewed as a formidable commodity, when they should rather be viewed as a tool. Tools are never inherently good or bad, but how they are used can be, and some developers intend for the coin to eventually be used with an ASIC. Some coins, such as Sia, were designed to specifically work with an ASIC. > 51% centralization is bad.
  • Bitmain has a better ASIC.
    • Probably. But this is an unknown. Speculation of an ASIC is not a reason to fork the second largest cryptocurrency.
  • Bitmain will be a cause for centralization
    • Everything should be a concern for centralization. Hell, early miners can be a bigger concern. The principals of economies of scale still apply to mining; so those who started out with a lot of GPUs are heavily mining. I've set up warehouses full of GPUs for clients, so if you think some of the guys here are big shots, I promise you there are larger concerns for the current state of centralization.
    • I will also note that yes, we will need to worry about a mass-manufacturer of just ASICs, especially if they are pumping out > 30,000 units per month at the current rate. But the firm that uncovered Bitmain's ASIC, Susquehannah, claims that there are at least three other ASIC manufacturers out there. This puts some silent competition on Bitmain.
  • Ethereum is not as centralized as Bitcoin
    • You'd think that, and the goal of the whitepaper was for Ethereum to be less centralized as bitcoin. It even mentions that "three mining pools indirectly control roughly 50% of processing power in the Bitcoin network." Ethereum is in this state already. Ethermine controls ~28% of the network hashrate, F2pool has ~17%, and SparkPool has ~15%. Arguably, the Ethereum network is in a more sensitive state.
  • Casper is right around the corner.
    • This has been speculation for some time now. Developers confirmed that testnet should be fully operational by August, meaning that we may be able to expect PoS hybrid by DecembeJanuary assuming everything goes as planned.
  • Dev team does not care about miners
    • In the project's current state, miners are a necessity. Remember that seigniorage must be sinigicant enough for miners to continue mining, otherwise, the network would slow and we'd have another Crypto Kitties incident on our hands. Until Ethereum is PoS, you are valid.
  • Dev team wants to get rid of miners
    • Well, yeah. That's what PoS is about. Ethereum will not be Proof of Work forever and that needs to be appreciated.
  • We should fork ourselves into an ASIC-proof currency
    • Do it! Take some initiative and work up a team, I'll be happy to help and support in any way that I can, including pointing my hashing power your way.

Ethereum decision governance

Right now, large decisions are made by the Ethereum core developers. This last decision to not hard-fork was not well received by the community. It feels to be almost an "electoral college" kind of deal, and that's something that has upset a lot of people. Is this the topic that we need to discuss in more detail?

So what is this thread?

For now, this is going to replace our weekly discussion for a few weeks until everything calms down. The sub is in a volatile state and everyone is slinging FUD at everyone else. We need to clean up and calmly discuss our position on the matter at hand. This means:
  • No more fighting about the ASIC in the comments
  • OUTSIDE OF THIS THREAD, please do not shitpost. Meaning, no more strongly worded threads about how you're out of mining completely because of the ASIC, or how the developers screwed you over because ETH was supposed to be ASIC proof, or how people are whining. I'm deleting threads left and right for people who are just using the sub as an outlet to name call on both sides.
  • As always, constructive threads are welcome, but shitposts are to be confined to this thread, please.

We all have different opinions

I am going to remain neutral on this topic. I mine with both GPUs and ASICs, and I've worked with countless numbers of people who do as well. We need to cooperate as a community instead of tearing each other apart over the issue. Let's think before we post and keep comments constructive.
Happy mining!
  • Rob
submitted by Robbbbbbbbb to EtherMining [link] [comments]

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

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

AN INTRODUCTION TO DIGIBYTE

DigiByte

What are cryptocurrencies?
Cryptocurrencies are peer to peer technology protocols which rely on the block-chain; a system of decentralized record keeping which allows people to exchange unmodifiable and indestructible information “coins,” globally in little to no time with little to no fees – this translates into the exchange of value as these coins cannot be counterfeit nor stolen. This concept was started by Satoshi Nakamoto (allegedly a pseudonym for a single man or organization) whom described and coded Bitcoin in 2009.
What is DigiByte?
DigiByte (DGB) is a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. It is also a decentralized applications protocol in a similar fashion to Neo or Ethereum.
DigiByte was founded and created by Jared Tate in 2014. DigiByte allows for fast (virtually instant) and low cost (virtually free) transactions. DigiByte is hard capped at 21 billion coins which will ever be mined, over a period of 21 years. DigiByte was never an ICO and was mined/created in the same way that Bitcoin or Litecoin initially were.
DigiByte is the fastest UTXO PoW scalable block-chain in the world. We’ll cover what this really means down below.
DigiByte has put forth and applied solutions to many of the problems that have plagued Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general – those being:
We will address these point by point in the subsequent sections.
The DigiByte Protocol
DigiByte maintains these properties through use of various technological innovations which we will briefly address below.
Why so many coins? 21 Billion
When initially conceived Bitcoin was the first of a kind! And came into the hands of a few! The beginnings of a coin such as Bitcoin were difficult, it had to go through a lot of initial growth pains which following coins did not have to face. It is for this reason among others why I believe Bitcoin was capped at 21 million; and why today it has thus secured a place as digital gold.
When Bitcoin was first invented no one knew anything about cryptocurrencies, for the inventor to get them out to the public he would have to give them away. This is how the first Bitcoins were probably passed on, for free! But then as interest grew so did the community. For them to be able to build something and create something which could go on to have actual value, it would have to go through a steady growth phase. Therefore, the control of inflation through mining was extremely important. Also, why the cap for Bitcoin was probably set so low - to allow these coins to amass value without being destroyed by inflation (from mining) in the same way fiat is today! In my mind Satoshi Nakamoto knew what he was doing when setting it at 21 million BTC and must have known and even anticipated others would take his design and build on top of it.
At DigiByte, we are that better design and capped at 21 billion. That's 1000 times larger than the supply of Bitcoin. Why though? Why is the cap on DigiByte so much higher than that of Bitcoin? Because DigiByte was conceived to be used not as a digital gold, nor as any sort of commodity, but as a real currency!
Today on planet Earth, we are approximately 7.6 billion people. If each person should want or need to use and live off Bitcoin; then equally split at best each person could only own 0.00276315789 BTC. The market cap for all the money on the whole planet today is estimated to have recently passed 80 trillion dollars. That means that each whole unit of Bitcoin would be worth approximately $3,809,523.81!
$3,809,523.81
This is of course in an extreme case where everyone used Bitcoin for everything. But even in a more conservative scenario the fact remains that with such a low supply each unit of a Bitcoin would become absurdly expensive if not inaccessible to most. Imagine trying to buy anything under a dollar!
Not only would using Bitcoin as an everyday currency be a logistical nightmare but it would be nigh impossible. For each Satoshi of a Bitcoin would be worth much, much, more than what is realistically manageable.
This is where DigiByte comes in and where it shines. DigiByte aims to be used world-wide as an international currency! Not to be hoarded in the same way Bitcoin is. If we were to do some of the same calculations with DigiByte we'd find that the numbers are a lot more reasonable.
At 7.6 billion people, each person could own 2.76315789474 DGB. Each whole unit of DGB would be worth approximately $3,809.52.
$3,809.52
This is much more manageable and remember in an extreme case where everyone used DigiByte for everything! I don't expect this to happen anytime soon, but with the supply of DigiByte it would allow us to live and transact in a much more realistic and fluid fashion. Without having to divide large numbers on our phone's calculator to understand how much we owe for that cup of coffee! With DigiByte it's simple, coffee cost 1.5 DGB, the cinema 2.8 DGB, a plane ticket 500 DGB!
There is a reason for DigiByte's large supply, and it is a good one!
Decentralisation
Decentralisation is an important concept for the block-chain and cryptocurrencies in general. This allows for a system which cannot be controlled nor manipulated no matter how large the organization in play or their intentions. DigiByte’s chain remains out of the reach of even the most powerful government. This allows for people to transact freely and openly without fear of censorship.
Decentralisation on the DigiByte block-chain is assured by having an accessible and fair mining protocol in place – this is the multi-algorithm (MultiAlgo) approach. We believe that all should have access to DigiByte whether through purchase or by mining. Therefore, DigiByte is minable not only on dedicated mining hardware such as Antminers, but also through use of conventional graphics cards. The multi-algorithm approach allows for users to mine on a variety of hardware types through use of one of the 5 mining algorithms supported by DigiByte. Those being:
Please note that these mining algorithms are modified and updated from time to time to assure complete decentralisation and thus ultimate security.
The problem with using only one mining algorithm such as Bitcoin or Litecoin do is that this allows for people to continually amass mining hardware and hash power. The more hash power one has, the more one can collect more. This leads to a cycle of centralisation and the creation of mining centres. It is known that a massive portion of all hash power in Bitcoin comes from China. This kind of centralisation is a natural tendency as it is cheaper for large organisations to set up in countries with inexpensive electricity and other such advantages which may be unavailable to the average miner.
DigiByte mitigates this problem with the use of multiple algorithms. It allows for miners with many different kinds of hardware to mine the same coin on an even playing field. Mining difficulty is set relative to the mining algorithm used. This allows for those with dedicated mining rigs to mine alongside those with more modest machines – and all secure the DigiByte chain while maintaining decentralisation.
Low Fees
Low fees are maintained in DigiByte thanks to the MultiAlgo approach working in conjunction with MultiShield (originally known as DigiShield). MultiShield calls for block difficulty readjustment between every single block on the chain; currently blocks last 15 seconds. This continuous difficulty readjustment allows us to combat any bad actors which may wish to manipulate the DigiByte chain.
Manipulation may be done by a large pool or a single entity with a great amount of hash power mining blocks on the chain; thus, increasing the difficulty of the chain. In some coins such as Bitcoin or Litecoin difficulty is readjusted every 2016 blocks at approximately 10mins each and 2mins respectively. Meaning that Bitcoin’s difficulty is readjusted about every two weeks. This system can allow for large bad actors to mine a coin and then abandon it, leaving it with a difficulty level far too high for the present hash rate – and so transactions can be frozen, and the chain stopped until there is a difficulty readjustment and or enough hash power to mine the chain. In such a case users may be faced with a choice - pay exorbitant fees or have their transactions frozen. In an extreme case the whole chain could be frozen completely for extended periods of time.
DigiByte does not face this problem as its difficulty is readjusted per block every 15 seconds. This innovation was a technological breakthrough and was adopted by several other coins in the cryptocurrency environment such as Dogecoin, Z-Cash, Ubiq, Monacoin, and Bitcoin Gold.
This difficulty readjustment along with the MultiAlgo approach allows DigiByte to maintain the lowest fees of any UTXO – PoW – chain in the world. Currently fees on the DigiByte block-chain are at about 0.0001 DGB per transaction of 100 000 DGB sent. This depends on the amount sent and currently 100 000 DGB are worth around $2000.00 with the fee being less than 0.000002 cents. It would take 500 000 transactions of 100 000 DGB to equal 1 penny’s worth. This was tested on a Ledger Nano S set to the low fees setting.
Fast transaction times
Fast transactions are ensured by the conjunctive use of the two aforementioned technology protocols. The use of MultiShield and MultiAlgo allows the mining of the DigiByte chain to always be profitable and thus there is always someone mining your transactions. MultiAlgo allows there to a greater amount of hash power spread world-wide, this along with 15 second block times allows for transactions to be near instantaneous. This speed is also ensured by the use DigiSpeed. DigiSpeed is the protocol by which the DigiByte chain will decrease block timing gradually. Initially DigiByte started with 30 second block times in 2014; which today are set at 15 seconds. This decrease will allow for ever faster and ever more transactions per block.
Robust security + The Immutable Ledger
At the core of cryptocurrency security is decentralisation. As stated before decentralisation is ensured on the DigiByte block chain by use of the MultiAlgo approach. Each algorithm in the MultiAlgo approach of DigiByte is only allowed about 20% of all new blocks. This in conjunction with MultiShield allows for DigiByte to be the most secure, most reliable, and fastest UTXO block chain on the planet. This means that DigiByte is a proof of work (PoW) block-chain where all transactional activities are stored on the immutable public ledger world-wide. In DigiByte there is no need for the Lightning protocol (although we have it) nor sidechains to scale, and thus we get to keep PoW’s security.
There are many great debates as to the robustness or cleanliness of PoW. The fact remains that PoW block-chains remain the only systems in human history which have never been hacked and thus their security is maximal.
For an attacker to divert the DigiByte chain they would need to control over 93% of all the hashrate on one algorithm and 51% of the other four. And so DigiByte is immune to the infamous 51% attack to which Bitcoin and Litecoin are vulnerable.
Moreover, the DigiByte block-chain is currently spread over 200 000 plus servers, computers, phones, and other machines world-wide. The fact is that DigiByte is one of the easiest to mine coins there is – this is greatly aided by the recent release of the one click miner. This allows for ever greater decentralisation which in turn assures that there is no single point of failure and the chain is thus virtually un-attackable.
On Chain Scalability
The biggest barrier for block-chains today is scalability. Visa the credit card company can handle around 2000 transactions per second (TPS) today. This allows them to ensure customer security and transactional rates nation-wide. Bitcoin currently sits at around 7 TPS and Litecoin at 28 TPS (56 TPS with SegWit). All the technological innovations I’ve mentioned above come together to allow for DigiByte to be the fastest PoW block-chain in the world and the most scalable.
DigiByte is scalable because of DigiSpeed, the protocol through which block times are decreased and block sizes are increased. It is known that a simple increase in block size can increase the TPS of any block-chain, such is the case with Bitcoin Cash. This is however not scalable. The reason a simple increase in block size is not scalable is because it would eventually lead to some if not a great amount of centralization. This centralization occurs because larger block sizes mean that storage costs and thus hardware cost for miners increases. This increase along with full blocks – meaning many transactions occurring on the chain – will inevitably bar out the average miner after difficulty increases and mining centres consolidate.
Hardware cost, and storage costs decrease over time following Moore’s law and DigiByte adheres to it perfectly. DigiSpeed calls for the increase in block sizes and decrease in block timing every two years by a factor of two. This means that originally DigiByte’s block sizes were 1 MB at 30 seconds each at inception in 2014. In 2016 DigiByte increased block size by two and decreased block timing by the same factor. Perfectly following Moore’s law. Moore’s law dictates that in general hardware increases in power by a factor of two while halving in cost every year.
This would allow for DigiByte to scale at a steady rate and for people to adopt new hardware at an equally steady rate and reasonable expense. Thus so, the average miner can continue to mine DigiByte on his algorithm of choice with entry level hardware.
DigiByte was one of the first block chains to adopt segregated witness (SegWit in 2017) a protocol whereby a part of transactional data is removed and stored elsewhere to decrease transaction data weight and thus increase scalability and speed. This allows us to fit more transactions per block which does not increase in size!
DigiByte currently sits at 560 TPS and could scale to over 280 000 TPS by 2035. This dwarfs any of the TPS capacities; even projected/possible capacities of some coins and even private companies. In essence DigiByte could scale worldwide today and still be reliable and robust. DigiByte could even handle the cumulative transactions of all the top 50 coins in coinmarketcap.com and still run smoothly and below capacity. In fact, to max out DigiByte’s actual maximum capacity (today at 560 TPS) you would have to take all these transactions and multiply them by a factor of 10!
Oher Uses for DigiByte
Note that DigiByte is not only to be used as a currency. Its immense robustness, security and scalability make it ideal for building decentralised applications (DAPPS) which it can host. DigiByte can in fact host DAPPS and even centralised versions which rely on the chain which are known as Digi-Apps. This application layer is also accompanied by a smart contract layer.
Thus, DigiByte could host several Crypto Kitties games and more without freezing out or increasing transaction costs for the end user.
Currently there are various DAPPS being built on the DigiByte block-chain, these are done independently of the DigiByte core team. These companies are simply using the DigiByte block-chain as a utility much in the same way one uses a road to get to work. One such example is Loly – a Tinderesque consensual dating application.
DigiByte also hosts a variety of other platform projects such as the following:
The DigiByte Foundation
As previously mentioned DigiByte was not an ICO. The DigiByte foundation was established in 2017 by founder Jared Tate. Its purpose is as a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting and developing the DigiByte block-chain.
DigiByte is a community effort and a community coin, to be treated as a public resource as water or air. Know that anyone can work on DigiByte, anyone can create, and do as they wish. It is a permissionless system which encourages innovation and creation. If you have an idea and or would like to get help on your project do not hesitate to contact the DigiByte foundation either through the official website and or the telegram developer’s channel.
For this reason, it is ever more important to note that the DigiByte foundation cannot exist without public support. And so, this is the reason I encourage all to donate to the foundation. All funds are used for the maintenance of DigiByte servers, marketing, and DigiByte development.
DigiByte Resources and Websites
DigiByte
Wallets
Explorers
Please refer to the sidebar of this sub-reddit for more resources and information.
Edit - Removed Jaxx wallet.
Edit - A new section was added to the article: Why so many coins? 21 Billion
Edit - Adjusted max capacity of DGB's TPS - Note it's actually larger than I initially calculated.
Edit – Grammar and format readjustment
Hello,
I hope you’ve enjoyed my article, I originally wrote this for the reddit sub-wiki where it generally will most likely, probably not, get a lot of attention. So instead I've decided to make this sort of an introductory post, an open letter, to any newcomers to DGB or for those whom are just curious.
I tried to cover every aspect of DGB, but of course I may have forgotten something! Please leave a comment down below and tell me why you're in DGB? What convinced you? Me it's the decentralised PoW that really convinced me. Plus, just that transaction speed and virtually no fees! Made my mouth water!
-Dereck de Mézquita
I'm a student typing this stuff on my free time, help me pay my debts? Thank you!
D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
https://digiexplorer.info/address/D64fAFQvJMhrBUNYpqUKQjqKrMLu76j24g
submitted by xeno_biologist to Digibyte [link] [comments]

ethtrader Glossary of Terms

I recently introduced a friend to our humble, little subreddit and they quickly pointed out that the language spoken here did not appear to be English. I suppose we do toss around a fair amount of acronyms, memes, and slang. I put together a quick glossary of terms for them and figured I should post it here in case any other new ethtraders can benefit from it:

Trading Related:

Crypto-currency related, but not really specific to Ethereum:

Terms more specific to Ethereum

Memes:

Any mistakes I made? Any terms you would add?
submitted by Basoosh to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Burstcoin Is A Robust And Unique Cryptocurrency: Proof of Capacity (PoC) Ensures Decentralization, Energy Efficiency, And Low Barrier To Entry

http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/burstcoin-is-a-robust-and-unique-cryptocurrency-proof-of-capacity-poc-ensures-decentralization-energy-efficiency-and-low-barrier-to-entry/
Decentralization is perhaps the fundamental reason why Bitcoin has been successful. Since Bitcoin is decentralized, its network cannot be controlled by any government, corporation, or other centralized entity, and this is why Bitcoin still exists to this day rather than being shutdown a long time ago. Bitcoin achieves decentralization through its Proof of Work (PoW) algorithm, where miners around the world cryptographically hash transactions into blocks and receive block rewards for their efforts, and nodes constantly check to ensure that all confirmed transactions are following consensus rules.
The major caveat with PoW is it is energy intensive. This has especially become a problem due to the rapid rise in Bitcoin’s price long term, which has resulted in an arms race of sorts to amass the most hashing power in order to obtain the most mining profits. Indeed, the Bitcoin hash rate has risen orders of magnitude, from MH/s, to GH/s, to TH/s, to PH/s, and now up to its all-time high so far of 84 EH/s. This represents exponentially more computing resources and energy consumption.
This is a problem for two reasons. First off, there is a very high barrier to entry for new users to mine Bitcoin. It requires thousands of dollars of mining equipment to make any worthwhile profit from mining Bitcoin.
Secondly, Bitcoin mining consumes a massive amount of energy worldwide. It is estimated by Digiconomist that Bitcoin mining uses 73.12 TWh of energy annually, equivalent to the electricity consumption of the entire country of Austria, or 0.33% of total global electricity consumption. This releases nearly 35 Megatons of Carbon Dioxide annually, contributing to global warming, aside from other environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels and manufacturing mining equipment. Digiconomist may be an overestimate of Bitcoin’s environmental impact, but it is somewhere in the ballpark.
Numerous alternative cryptocurrencies have tried to be environmentally friendly via using the Proof of Stake (PoS) algorithm, but this sacrifices decentralization, since all the voting rights end up concentrated into the hands of developers and major bag holders.
This is where Proof of Capacity (PoC), formerly called Proof of Space, comes in. Instead of using specialized Bitcoin mining equipment, PoC simply uses hard drive space to mine cryptocurrency. Burstcoin (BURST) is the #1 PoC cryptocurrency. Bitcoin HD (BHD) is another PoC cryptocurrency, but it has a highly centralized supply with 3.1 million out of 5 million total coins in the hands of the developers, so it is nonsensical to choose BHD considering that BURST has a highly decentralized supply. The problem with a centralized supply is it can cause a coin’s value to collapse long term due to developers dumping on the market.
In order to start mining BURST, a user simply allocates part of their hard drive, and this area of hard drive is plotted. Plotting is a 1-time hashing cycle where the hard drive is filled with cryptographic hashes via the Shabal cryptographic algorithm. The node also has to synchronize with the BURST blockchain before mining. Fortunately, the BURST blockchain is less than 9 GB, versus the Bitcoin blockchain which is nearly 240 GB.
Once plotting and synchronization is complete the user can begin mining. During each mining round the plot file is searched to find the correct cryptographic hash for the block, and when the correct hash is found the user receives a block reward. Essentially, the hashes in the plot file can be thought of as lottery tickets, and the bigger the size of the plot, meaning the more hard drive space dedicated to mining BURST, the more likely it is to find the correct hash.
Like with Bitcoin mining, users can join pools so that even if they have a small amount of hard drive space they can still earn BURST at a steady pace.
Since BURST’s PoC algorithm simply reads a hard drive versus the intense computational work of Bitcoin’s PoW, BURST mining uses a negligible amount of electricity. It is estimated that each BURST transaction consumes 0.0024 KWh of electricity, versus about 1,000 KWh used for each Bitcoin transaction.
Aside from being far more environmentally friendly, electricity costs are negligible for BURST miners, so BURST miners earn nearly 100% profit. This opens the door for users with any level of technology to profitably mine BURST, including personal computers and technically even cell phones. Compare this to Bitcoin where mining with even a powerful personal computer is impossible.
Ultimately, BURST’s energy efficiency makes the barrier to entry very low, a user simply needs to have hard drive space to mine BURST. This results in the BURST network being highly decentralized.
Notably, miners do not have to buy any special equipment to mine BURST, they just use spare hard drive space that was sitting unused, versus Bitcoin mining where specialized hardware that costs thousands of dollars is required. Bitcoin mining rigs often become obsolete with time, and also have no other use besides Bitcoin mining, whereas hard drive space used for BURST mining never becomes obsolete and can easily be freed up and used for storage by deleting the plot file.
In summary, BURST is one of the most unique and fundamentally robust cryptocurrencies due to its PoC algorithm, which ensures decentralization while simultaneously guaranteeing energy efficiency and a low barrier for miner entry.
submitted by turtlecane to burst [link] [comments]

Blockchain Dictionary for Newbies

Blockchain Glossary: From A-Z
51% Attack
When more than half of the computing power of a cryptocurrency network is controlled by a single entity or group, this entity or group may issue conflicting transactions to harm the network, should they have the malicious intent to do so.
Address
Cryptocurrency addresses are used to send or receive transactions on the network. An address usually presents itself as a string of alphanumeric characters.
ASIC
Short form for ‘Application Specific Integrated Circuit’. Often compared to GPUs, ASICs are specially made for mining and may offer significant power savings.
Bitcoin
Bitcoin is the first decentralised, open source cryptocurrency that runs on a global peer to peer network, without the need for middlemen and a centralised issuer.
Block
Blocks are packages of data that carry permanently recorded data on the blockchain network.
Blockchain
A blockchain is a shared ledger where transactions are permanently recorded by appending blocks. The blockchain serves as a historical record of all transactions that ever occurred, from the genesis block to the latest block, hence the name blockchain.
Block Explorer
Block explorer is an online tool to view all transactions, past and current, on the blockchain. They provide useful information such as network hash rate and transaction growth.
Block Height
The number of blocks connected on the blockchain.
Block Reward
A form of incentive for the miner who successfully calculated the hash in a block during mining. Verification of transactions on the blockchain generates new coins in the process, and the miner is rewarded a portion of those.
Central Ledger
A ledger maintained by a central agency.
Confirmation
The successful act of hashing a transaction and adding it to the blockchain.
Consensus
Consensus is achieved when all participants of the network agree on the validity of the transactions, ensuring that the ledgers are exact copies of each other.
Cryptocurrency
Also known as tokens, cryptocurrencies are representations of digital assets.
Cryptographic Hash Function
Cryptographic hashes produce a fixed-size and unique hash value from variable-size transaction input. The SHA-256 computational algorithm is an example of a cryptographic hash.
Dapp
A decentralised application (Dapp) is an application that is open source, operates autonomously, has its data stored on a blockchain, incentivised in the form of cryptographic tokens and operates on a protocol that shows proof of value.
DAO
Decentralised Autonomous Organizations can be thought of as corporations that run without any human intervention and surrender all forms of control to an incorruptible set of business rules.
Distributed Ledger
Distributed ledgers are ledgers in which data is stored across a network of decentralized nodes. A distributed ledger does not have to have its own currency and may be permissioned and private.
Distributed Network
A type of network where processing power and data are spread over the nodes rather than having a centralised data centre.
Difficulty
This refers to how easily a data block of transaction information can be mined successfully.
Digital Signature
A digital code generated by public key encryption that is attached to an electronically transmitted document to verify its contents and the sender’s identity.
Double Spending
Double spending occurs when a sum of money is spent more than once.
Ethereum
Ethereum is a blockchain-based decentralised platform for apps that run smart contracts, and is aimed at solving issues associated with censorship, fraud and third party interference.
EVM
The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is a Turing complete virtual machine that allows anyone to execute arbitrary EVM Byte Code. Every Ethereum node runs on the EVM to maintain consensus across the blockchain.
Fork
Forks create an alternate version of the blockchain, leaving two blockchains to run simultaneously on different parts of the network.
Genesis Block
The first or first few blocks of a blockchain.
Hard Fork
A type of fork that renders previously invalid transactions valid, and vice versa. This type of fork requires all nodes and users to upgrade to the latest version of the protocol software.
Hash
The act of performing a hash function on the output data. This is used for confirming coin transactions.
Hash Rate
Measurement of performance for the mining rig is expressed in hashes per second.
Hybrid PoS/PoW
A hybrid PoS/PoW allows for both Proof of Stake and Proof of Work as consensus distribution algorithms on the network. In this method, a balance between miners and voters (holders) may be achieved, creating a system of community-based governance by both insiders (holders) and outsiders (miners).
Mining
Mining is the act of validating blockchain transactions. The necessity of validation warrants an incentive for the miners, usually in the form of coins. In this cryptocurrency boom, mining can be a lucrative business when done properly. By choosing the most efficient and suitable hardware and mining target, mining can produce a stable form of passive income.
Multi-Signature
Multi-signature addresses provide an added layer of security by requiring more than one key to authorize a transaction.
Node
A copy of the ledger operated by a participant of the blockchain network.
Oracles
Oracles work as a bridge between the real world and the blockchain by providing data to the smart contracts.
Peer to Peer
Peer to Peer (P2P) refers to the decentralized interactions between two parties or more in a highly-interconnected network. Participants of a P2P network deal directly with each other through a single mediation point.
Public Address
A public address is the cryptographic hash of a public key. They act as email addresses that can be published anywhere, unlike private keys.
Private Key
A private key is a string of data that allows you to access the tokens in a specific wallet. They act as passwords that are kept hidden from anyone but the owner of the address.
Proof of Stake
A consensus distribution algorithm that rewards earnings based on the number of coins you own or hold. The more you invest in the coin, the more you gain by mining with this protocol.
Proof of Work
A consensus distribution algorithm that requires an active role in mining data blocks, often consuming resources, such as electricity. The more ‘work’ you do or the more computational power you provide, the more coins you are rewarded with.
Scrypt
Scrypt is a type of cryptographic algorithm and is used by Litecoin. Compared to SHA256, this is quicker as it does not use up as much processing time.
SHA-256
SHA-256 is a cryptographic algorithm used by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. However, it uses a lot of computing power and processing time, forcing miners to form mining pools to capture gains.
Smart Contracts
Smart contracts encode business rules in a programmable language onto the blockchain and are enforced by the participants of the network.
Soft Fork
A soft fork differs from a hard fork in that only previously valid transactions are made invalid. Since old nodes recognize the new blocks as valid, a soft fork is essentially backward-compatible. This type of fork requires most miners upgrading in order to enforce, while a hard fork requires all nodes to agree on the new version.
Solidity
Solidity is Ethereum’s programming language for developing smart contracts.
Testnet
A test blockchain used by developers to prevent expending assets on the main chain.
Transaction Block
A collection of transactions gathered into a block that can then be hashed and added to the blockchain.
Transaction Fee
All cryptocurrency transactions involve a small transaction fee. These transaction fees add up to account for the block reward that a miner receives when he successfully processes a block.
Turing Complete
Turing complete refers to the ability of a machine to perform calculations that any other programmable computer is capable of. An example of this is the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM).
Wallet
A file that houses private keys. It usually contains a software client which allows access to view and create transactions on a specific blockchain that the wallet is designed for.
submitted by Tokenberry to NewbieZone [link] [comments]

Zoin Basics: A Beginner’s Guide to Obtaining Zoin

Welcome to Zoin! We want to start by thanking you for joining our amazing community. Zoin is a community-governed decentralized digital currency with privacy features (based on the Zerocoin protocol) and is developed by a diverse team from all around the world. There is no pre-mine and no founder’s reward for Zoin; additionally, it is strictly CPU-minable (see mining section below). Together, these features ensure fairness and transparency to everyone interested in obtaining Zoin. Through this guide you will learn about the current methods of acquiring Zoin for yourself.

How to Earn / Buy Zoin

Right now, there are two ways you can obtain Zoin. You can either use the Bitcoin/Zoin trading pair on Cryptopia exchange or you can mine for Zoin using your own hardware.
 

Method 1: Trading Zoin on Cryptopia

To start, the easiest way to buy a cryptocurrency such as Ethereum or Litecoin is through Coinbase, where you can buy up to $500 worth of Litecoins (for example) using a credit card before you need to verify your identity. Coinbase accepts buyers from 33 countries across the world. A simple guide from Coinbase on buying Litecoin (or Ethereum) with your bank account / credit card is all you need to get started.
Once you have purchased either Litecoin or Ethereum (or another altcoin) you may login to Cryptopia exchange, after you’ve created an account. You must create a deposit address for the same coin that you previously bought on Coinbase or another exchange by clicking deposit under your account, and then typing the name of the coin you wish to deposit. This will generate an address for your Cryptopia trading wallet to receive coins. You can either copy / paste the address (never type it yourself without verifying it), or scan the QR code if you are sending from a mobile wallet.
Once you make a deposit to your Cryptopia wallet address you must wait for several confirmations before your funds are trade-able on Cryptopia. This usually takes around 30 minutes.
When the deposit is confirmed you may go to the Exchange Market section of Cryptopia and search for the coin you just deposited. Once you are there, create a sell order and wait for someone to buy it, or choose a buy order for the coin to trade it for Bitcoin right away. Since you just purchased your cryptocurrency, the price probably won’t be very different than when you bought it, but this depends heavily on the current state of the market. Look up how much the current buy orders are (in your country’s currency), if it is close to the price you bought it at then you can sell at that price. Remember, a sell order may not be filled right away, but choosing someone’s buy order will sell it to them instantly.
If you have successfully traded your altcoin for Bitcoin on Cryptopia, you may now use your Bitcoin to buy Zoin. You can buy Zoin through a buy order of your own (bid) or a sell order from someone else; again, this is entirely up to you and how you anticipate the market / price of coins.
Congratulations, you have successfully bought your first Zoin!
The next step is to transfer the Zoin you bought to your own personal Zoin wallet. To do this, download the wallet on your preferred platform and after installing and running the wallet for the first time, wait for the blockchain to fully sync.
 
  1. Close your wallet (if it’s open).
  2. Delete the following folders from %appdata% on Windows or Library/Application Support/Zoin on Mac: Blocks, Chainstate and the file peers.dat
  3. Download the latest blockchain file, extract using 7Zip or your preferred program.
  4. Paste the newly downloaded folders: Block, Chainstate and file peers.dat in ZOIN folder under %appdata% on Windows or Library/Application Support/Zoin on Mac
  5. Open the wallet and wait for it to synchronize. This should take less time than downloading the entire blockchain and syncing from scratch. The process should take around 30 minutes.
Go to the Receive tab and click on your address, then choose Copy Address. Paste that address on the Cryptopia withdraw page for Zoin and confirm that you want to withdraw. In a few minutes, your Zoin will show up in your wallet (it will be confirmed after 6 confirmations).
 
After your wallet is up to date and you’ve added some of your coins to it, you will want to make it safe in case something happens.
The first thing you want to do is to encrypt it. You can do this by clicking on Settings Encrypt Wallet
You should type in a passphrase that is safe and that you will remember, confirm this passphrase and proceed to encrypt your wallet.
Please be advised, once you set your passphrase you can’t forget it or all your funds will be lost!
Right after your wallet has been encrypted, you should make a backup of it. Click on File Backup Wallet and save the wallet as a wallet.dat file
If you want to open your wallet on another computer you may save the wallet file onto a flash drive or other backup device / method you may already have. Remember that if you encrypted your wallet before doing this backup you must know the passphrase in order to access your wallet.
 
Another way of recovering your wallet is by finding the private key for the wallet. This can be done in the wallet debug terminal (advanced). For accessing your wallet private key, you must do the following procedure:
If your wallet is encrypted: Click Help Debug Window Console (tab). In the console window, use the command walletpassphrase first:
walletpassphrase "YourPassphrase" 60 
Where "YourPassphrase" is the passphrase you used when you encrypted your wallet and 60 is the amount of time you want to unencrypt your wallet for (in seconds).
Next, use the dumpprivkey command in the following form:
dumpprivkey "wallet address" 
Replace "wallet address" with your own wallet address.
After entering these commands, you will receive your private key.
You may now write down and save this private key.
 

Method 2: Mining Zoin

The second way of obtaining Zoin is to earn it by mining, using your own hardware and a mining pool server (we recommend the official pool). Mining Zoin is possible with any modern computer as long as it has a CPU.
To start mining you need to have an account in a “pool”; this is a place where several computers (also known as workers) connect together to mine the blockchain. As we mine the blockchain, we find blocks which contain a reward (currently 12.5 Zoin) which is shared by the number of total miners depending on each person’s mining hashrate. The better your hardware is, the more Zoin you will receive from mining.
To get started, visit our official pool and create your mining account.
You will need to set up a worker. This is your mining device which should be assigned a name and password in order for the network to distinguish your mining rig from others. To do this, visit the Workers page.
The Username must be set for as many workers or computers you want to set up. For example, if the username you chose when signing up to our pool was “john123” and you set your first computer name to worker1. Then your username and worker will be: “john123.worker1”. If you set a second worker as worker2, your second worker name will be “john123.worker2” and so on. The password will be whatever you choose under the password that box, the password can be the same for all the workers.
 
Mining on Windows:
Now that your workers are set, you can go ahead and download mining software, which you can get from the Resources page of the official pool.
Once you have the mining software, open the compressed folder by extracting its contents and create a batch (.bat) file which will contain all the info necessary to mine Zoin into your account. To do this, open a text editor such as Notepad and save the file as .bat instead of .txt
 
This batch file must contain just one line:
cpuminer-aes-avx2.exe -a lyra2zoin -o stratum+tcp://zoin.netabuse.net:3000 -u username.workername -p workerpassword 
 
cpuminer-aes-avx2.exe is the .exe file that you want to use, it depends on your CPU.
Lyra2zoin is the algorithm used by Zoin, that should remain the same.
stratum+tcp://zoin.netabuse.net:3000 is the link to the official pool.
username.workername should be the username you set. (Example: john123.worker1)
workerpassword is the password you set for each worker.
Once you set this batch file, you can run it by double-clicking on it.
 
Note: Make sure that your Firewall / AV program isn’t blocking cpuminer-aes-avx2.exe or the .bat file in order for it to run successfully.
 
Mining on Linux (Advanced):
Type the following into the terminal one line at a time:
 
sudo chown -R $USER: $HOME 
 
sudo apt-get update 
 
sudo apt-get install automake autoconf pkg-config libcurl4-openssl-dev libjansson-dev libssl-dev libgmp-dev -y 
 
sudo apt-get install autotools-dev automake make libcurl4-openssl-dev g++ libssl-dev libgmp3-dev -y 
 
sudo apt-get install build-essential screen automake m4 openssl libssl-dev git libjson0 libjson0-dev libcurl4- openssl-dev autoconf python-software-properties -y 
 
sudo git clone https://github.com/JayDDee/cpuminer-opt 
 
cd cpuminer-opt 
 
./build.sh 
 
./cpuminer -a lyra2zoin -o stratum+tcp://zoin.netabuse.net:3000 -u USERNAME.WORKERNAME -p x -t x 
Replace USERNAME.WORKERNAME with your unique pool username and workername
 
Mining on Mac OS:
  1. Download and install Docker Community Edition
  2. Visit the Zoin Official Pool and create your mining account
  3. Setup a Worker
  4. Edit the line below to match your pool configuration:
 
docker run hmage/cpuminer-opt -a lyra2zoin -o stratum+tcp://zoin.netabuse.net:3000 -u USERNAME.WORKERNAME -p x 
 
hmage/cpuminer-opt is the miner that will be used by docker.
Lyra2zoin is the algorithm used by Zoin, that should remain the same.
stratum+tcp://zoin.netabuse.net:3000 is the link to the official pool.
USERNAME.WORKERNAME should be your unique username and workname (Example: john123.worker1)
If Docker up and running, open Terminal on your Mac (Command + Spacebar and type "Terminal") and paste the line you created. Docker will proceed to download the necessary programs and start mining right away. If you can see the Accepted green message you are mining and you can check all of the mining stats and your earnings from the pool on the main page.
Happy mining!
submitted by Bluish91 to zoinofficial [link] [comments]

How to get $100 million in VC funding to build an industry that makes $300 million profit without spending a dime

Yesterday I received an unexpected gift: a link to a copy of the slides of the presentation that 21inc gave to investors, apparently between October and December 2014, when they were still calling themselves "21E6".
(The sender asked to remain anonymous, and I am not sure about the copyright status of the file; so I would rather not repost it here yet. But it seems that several other people, including some of the 21inc competitors, have got a copy too; so anyone who is really interested can probably get it too.)
The slides don't have much new factual information, and basically confirm what we already guessed about the 21inc business plans. But they show that we severely underestimated their chutzpah and hype. Here are some random highlights (as far as I can decipher from the slides):
They had three relevant mining rig designs in the plans, that would require funding:
Codename Qty TH/s kW Cost Deploy Turnoff Profit($) --------------- ---- ---- --- ---- ------------ ----------- ----------- CyrusOne(v2), 7904 2.0 1.3 --- (already on) Apr 2015 ~23,000,000 IO(v1v3) 3250 5.2 1.3 2000 Jan 2015 Aug 2016 ~24,000,000 Brownfield(v3) 1900 5.5 1.3 2450 Mar 2015 > Nov 2017 ~20,000,000 
The "TH/s", "Cost", and "kW" columns are per "system", i.e. a mining unit containing many chips. The last column is the expected profit to be made from each set of mining hardware over its expected lifetime. (The slides have some other details that do not seem to be important.)
The first line is the hardware that they were mining with at the time of the presentation; that must be why the "Cost" (as far as investors are concerned) is given as zero.
The second line seems to be an upgrade of their previous mining hardware from v1 chips (which gave 2.7 PH/s total at the time) to v3 chips (which would give 17 PH/s) .
In reality, we have seen that their share of hashpower dwindled through all of 2015, and (AFAIK) they haven't mined a single block in the last six months. Were they still mining with CyrusOne on extra-life, or were they using the upgraded IO which was turned off prematurely? What happened to Brownfield?
However, their mining operations were secondary; the meat of their plan was the embedded chip, called BitSplit at the time.
The BitSPlit chip (as we suspected) was hard-wired to send 75% of the block reward to the 21inc wallet, whose address was burned in the silicon, and 25% to the user's wallet.
By my calculations, assuming 50 GH/s and no increase in the difficulty, the BitSplit would mine one block in 570 years, on average, and collect less than 2 BTC of reward in that time. So, of course, the chip was hard-wired to mine into a pool run by 21inc, that would spread the user's 25% of those 2 BTC (expected) into a daily regular trickle of a couple thousand satoshis. Their own mining operations would provide the BTC needed for the pool payouts of all the millions of chips that they expected to be running out there.
They projected to release 3 versions:
Model Qty GH/s W Cost Deploy Profit($) --------------- ---------- ---- -- ---- ------------ ------------ USB hub-charger 250,000 38 15 $35 Mar 2015 ~8,000,000 Embedded chip 1,000,000 63 15 $8 Aug 2015 ~103,000,000 BitSplit Inside 10,000,000 20 5 $0 Oct 2015 ~292,000,000 
The "Qty" is the expected number of units sold. The last column, IIUC, is the profit that 21inc expected to make from the 75% cut of the BTC produced by all the chips, over their expected lifetime.
In the above "USB hub-charger" model was a USB charging unit, roughly 3 x 2 x 1 inches, with 2 USB outputs and a mining chip inside, produced by 21inc themselves "to seed the market".
The second line, which I called "Embedded chip", seems to refer to discrete BitSplit chips provided by 21inc and included in consumer devices (like routers etc.) by OEM manufacturers.
The "BitSplit Inside" model would be the BitSplit integrated into the chipsets of other manufacturers, and manufactured by them. Its cost is listed as "$0" (for 21inc) because they expected those manufacturers to shoulder the cost of manufacturing and integrating the mining chip.
Apparently the market-seeding "USB hub-charger" was later replaced by the "Bitcoin Computer" (aka the PiTato). In one slide it is called "multifunctional BitSplit device", and depicted as a sleek shiny black box, the size of a cigarette pack, with a power cable and 2-3 USB or similar outputs. If that is supposed to be the PiTato, presumably they had not yet realized that a 15 w computer would need a cooling fan with a miniature wind tunnel on top.
In the last two entries, the manufacturers (not the device owners!) would be rewarded with the 25% slice of the BTC mined by those embedded chips. As an example, the slides say that a manufacturer who produced one quarter of the embedded BitSplits would get the 25% cut on the BTC yield of those chips, that was estimated to be between 2 and 4 million dollars per year of revenue in 2015--2018. Those numbers are based on the following predicted mean BTC prices: $350 for 2015, $1000 for 2016, $2200 for 2017, and $5500 for 2018.
So, their main business plan was fantastic: the OEM and chipset makers would pay the costs of producing and integrating the chips, the consumers would pay the cost of operating them, and 21inc would get 75% of all BTC mined by them, expected to be worth 400 million dollars.
It makes sense to invest 100 million in that plan, right?
EDIT1: Sentence order, typos.
EDIT2: See also this comment below about other sources of this info and this comment about a fatal flaw of the PiTato mining chip.
EDIT3: See also this comment with the data from slide 2, "At a glance"
submitted by jstolfi to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

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

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

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

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

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

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

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

“PC is leading the VR—“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“There are more PC gamers.”

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

"Modding is only on PC."

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

What’s the Point?

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

How to build a Mining Rig - Teil 1 - Die Hardware Deutsch How To Build a Crypto GPU Mining Rig With $1000 or Less ... DIY Bitcoin Mining: Software (part 2) - YouTube I Built a Crypto Mining Farm in My Garage  How To Setup a ... Bitcoin Mining - Rig Software Calculator Machine Hardware ...

Einmal investieren, fortan Geld im Schlaf verdienen: Das Bitcoin-Prinzip klingt zu schön, um wahr zu sein. Wir haben einige der Goldgräber-Maschinen im c’t-Labor schürfen lassen und gezählt ... A mining rig is a computer system used for mining bitcoins.The rig might be a dedicated miner where it was procured, built and operated specifically for mining or it could otherwise be a computer that fills other needs, such as performing as a gaming system, and is used to mine only on a part-time basis. Mining hardware comparison 2017-2018 . Model Hashrate Efficiency price AntMiner S1: 180 Gh/s : 2.0 W/Gh : $299.0 AntMiner S2: 1000 Gh/s : 1.1 W/Gh : $2259.0 AntMiner S3: 441 Gh/s : 0.77 W/Gh : $382.0 AntMiner S4: 2000 Gh/s : 0.7 W/Gh : $1400.0 AntMiner S5: 1155 Gh/s : 0.51 W/Gh : $370.0 AntMiner S5+ 7722 Gh/s : 0.44 W/Gh : $2307.0 AntMiner S7: 4.73 Th/s : 0.25 W/Gh : $479.95 AntMiner S9: 13.5 ... Mining von Bitcoin mit eigener Hardware. Um als Miner durch eigene Leistung an der Herstellung von Blöcken beizutragen, benötigen Sie spezielle Hardware in Form von ASIC-Chips. Diese gibt es in unterschiedlichen Preiskategorien von diversen Herstellern. Die bekanntesten darunter sind Antminer9 oder auch Avalon6. In der Vergangenheit war es ebenfalls möglich, Bitcoin Mining über den ... Bitcoin Mining Rigs Struggle for Profits, Despite BTC's Hashrate Reaching an All-Time High . Bitcoin’s hashrate climbed to an all-time high (ATH) this week touching 166 exahash per second (EH/s ...

[index] [47371] [8315] [49501] [35429] [13535] [3174] [27199] [15682] [33640] [4120]

How to build a Mining Rig - Teil 1 - Die Hardware Deutsch

Get an additional $10 in Bitcoins from Coinbase when purchasing through my referral link http://fredyen.com/get/Bitcoins BitMinter: http://bit.ly/BitMinter S... I set up a Bitcoin cryptocurrency mining farm in my garage with GPU mining rigs and ASIC miners as well as FPGA miners in my house. I explain how to setup yo... Grüßt euch! In Teil 1 der 6teiligen How to build a Mining Rig Serie zeige ich euch, was ihr für Hardware benötigt und welche ich selbst gekauft habe. Alles W... Vosk reviews how to build the best cheap beginner crypto GPU mining rig in a few easy steps! Anyone can build this Duo Mining Rig for less than $1000 with no... In diesem Video bauen wir zusammen ein güntiges Mining Rig zusammen. Mit Windows Einrichtung. Da es diese Bauteile aus dem Video nicht mehr alle gibt. Habe i...

#