Pumpkin Miner (BFL Single) : Bitcoin

The guts of a BFL single on display at Bitcoin 2013

The guts of a BFL single on display at Bitcoin 2013 submitted by taylorgerring to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[WTS] BFL 10.1 GHs Jalapeño & 60 GHs Singles Bitcoin Miners

Recently upgraded BFL Jalapeño to 10.1 GHs. ($600) Also have 4x BFL 60GHs Singles for sale as well. ($1800)
www.NTXbitcoin.com
submitted by jat0369 to BitMarket [link] [comments]

Pre-order BFL Singles cost 216 Bitcoins, or $71,000

At the time bitcoins were worth $6, and singles cost $1300 - if you bought your single with bitcoins, its actually cost you $71,000
submitted by lukerayes08 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is it worth setting up my BFL single miner? /r/Bitcoin

Is it worth setting up my BFL single miner? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BFL single...average Bitcoins mined per day?

Sorry I just don't understand the whole hash performance thing...so give it to me in simple English ...how many bitcoins can I expect to mine per day with it?
submitted by mojolama to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Butterfly Labs BFL 60 GH/s Single SC ASIC Bitcoin Miner is for sale on cryptothrift.com for Bitcoin and Litecoin https://cryptothrift.com/auctions/crypto-mining-asic/butterfly-labs-bfl-60-ghs-single-sc-asic-bitcoin-miner/

Butterfly Labs BFL 60 GH/s Single SC ASIC Bitcoin Miner is for sale on cryptothrift.com for Bitcoin and Litecoin https://cryptothrift.com/auctions/crypto-mining-asic/butterfly-labs-bfl-60-ghs-single-sc-asic-bitcoin-mine submitted by duetschpire to cryptothrift [link] [comments]

Butterfly Labs Single SC 60 GH s Bitcoin Miner BFL RARE Fast Don'T Wait | eBay

Butterfly Labs Single SC 60 GH s Bitcoin Miner BFL RARE Fast Don'T Wait | eBay submitted by NSLbot to NSL [link] [comments]

BFL 60GH/s Single Bitcoin Miner

Selling my lightly used 60GH/s miner from BFL. I figure it's time I pass the torch. Comes with factory psu and all. Asking 17 BTC + 1 BTC SHIPPING TO CANADA/USA AND 2 BTC WORLDWIDE SHIPPING.
submitted by fracta15 to BitMarket [link] [comments]

A Look at the BFL Jalapeno and Little Single ASIC Bitcoin Miners

submitted by bitterone65 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BFL Video Update. 5 GH/s in action.

BFL Video Update. 5 GH/s in action. submitted by lolbitcoin to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Why are you not taking it seriously ? It is a world changing libertarian anti-government freedom enhancing world currency.

How do I maximize my $ profit ?
submitted by xb102 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

I own 179 BTC, here is my story

I am not a wealthy person by any means, but Bitcoin has helped.
I discovered Bitcoin via a post on overclock.net on April 27th, 2011. I believe the price was about $1.50/coin then. I read the posts about people mining them, did some research, and immediately started my Radeon card mining them. I had a 4770 back then.
There was an exchange to sell Bitcoins for linden dollars (Second Life currency) and then I could sell those for paypal dollars. Within a day I had proven to my wife that I could make money with this Bitcoin thing. Despite us being in a position where we couldn't even pay our credit cards, I took the $1100 we had and bought 4 5850's, some power supplies, and some cheap craigslist computers. I figured that if this whole Bitcoin thing failed miserably, at least I had some decent computer hardware I could resell and recover most of the cost. I immediately sold one 5850 for greater-than-market value since they were in demand and I needed the money, and started the other 3 mining. At one point, I was mining nearly 8 coins a day. I bought a few more cards as time went on and continued GPU mining for as long as it was viable.
This whole thing saved us financially. I was able to sell the Bitcoins and settle on my unpayable credit card debts. I held on to a few during the crash but managed to sell most of them at $10 or more, fortunately. After that I started saving them, since they were worth so little. I bought some of the early BFL FPGA miners, the ones that were measured in MHashes not GHashes. After mining with those for a while and then selling them to someone who wanted them more than I did, I had more than 450 BTC. I took the plunge and pre-ordered BFL's latest offerings, the 60GH singles, the day they were available, becoming one of the first on the preorder list. Little did I know I would have been much better off just holding those coins...
Regardless, I did eventually receive those singles, and managed to get about 225 BTC out of them before they were no longer worth running. I've been slowly selling the stash as we needed for remodel projects around the house and for miscellaneous expenses, though I finally no longer need to do so, as we've been able to pay off more debts and have more income than expenses each month. Now I've got a nice pile of savings, and I'm hoping to someday be able to use it to buy a better house in a better neighborhood.
I generally don't tell people that I have just about all my liquid assets in Bitcoin, as they would call me crazy. They might be right. But it's a risk I'm willing to take. I do have some equity in my house, and some retirement accounts, but neither is worth more than my BTC stash.
So that's MY story, what's yours?
submitted by bitcoinzzzz to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BFL Labs - What I know so far

Hey guys,
Not sure if you are aware, but Josh from BFL labs has advised units to begin shipping end of april. (Hopefully)
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/announcements/692-bfl-asic-status-3.html
There have been further annoucements and talk in the shoutbox regarding this.. information seems to be all over the place. so this is what I know so far:
18/04/13: At this stage they are in the final stage of testing and fine tuning the power consumption ( predictions showed it to be in the range of 1GH/J but its now looking closer to 170MH/J ) This will also likely improve over time but is still miles ahead of Avalon and GPU miners.
Minirig is no longer available for purchase as they cannot fit it in the case that it was intended for so after the Single SC is finished they will look into the minirig again, But the minirig is composed of Single SC's that are running on a higher clock due to more optimised cooling.
The chips are FINE. The delay is re-engeneering the power system on the boards to handle to extra consumption.
IMHO I think they will start the shipping process on end of april, They will start with the Jalapeno's and work their way up. Still no ETA for minirig though..
You may have heard about the tour on reddit http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1c3hyc/toured_butterflylabs_a_few_hours_ago/
This was confirmed by Josh but he also made a valid point, "Why would we pay staff to stand around watching" Once the shipping process begins they expect to ship 400 units per day. I would say the first week would be 200 units per day average while they sort out all the kinks. But I have high hopes.
UPDATE: Photos of Mini-Rig: http://imgur.com/a/Uanjr#0 Please note these may be an older model, But give you a better idea of how a slightly larger PCB will affect the production..
If you have ordered from BFL Labs, Please fill in your details here so we can publicly track how many have been delivered etc.
UPDATE 2: Found this on BFL website.
BFL will make 400 units/day. 2,000 units/week. 8,000 units/month. That means: ->4 months = 32,000 units ->5 months = 40,000 units ->6 months = 48,000 units
UPDATE 3: There are many photos and some misc information on BFL and the ASIC miners below. Forum registration is required for some photos. https://forums.butterflylabs.com/bfl-forum-miscellaneous/1099-orders-shipping-pictures-facility-when-my-stuff-here-why-delays-shipping.html
UPDATE 4 (2/5): There is a BFL update email going out now, so check your inbox. Also, Josh has been posting stuff in the last 12 hours, so I'll be sending out some quotes shortly.
BFL_Josh on order confirmation: I'd wait awhile before trying. It's not like we're going to cancle your order today. You got 10 days or so... BFL_Josh - Yeah Product server is dying.
We are doing this so that we can be sure everyone understands that the power usage is more than we planned. We don't want to get into a situation where we ship something out that someone isn't expecting.
BFL_Josh - Product server is overloaded. Wait awhile to confirm your orders. No orders are in imminent danger of being refunded without approval. Clicking accept does not change your place in the order queue.
BFL_Sabina - When the website is back up, please log in to the website and proceed with the confirmation process there. Confirmation by email is not accepted.
If you check the products page you will see the Single SC is much larger than originally intended and this confirms what I was saying earlier about the larger PCB. Will update when I hear further.. I would say they are staggering the emails as their website is overloaded and I don't have an email personally yet.. however this is all in the last 2 hours.. so we shall just have to wait and see...
Check back here for more updates. I will update as soon as it is available. Find the information helpfull? Tips are appreciated :)
submitted by Pyr0AWLB to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Wanted: BFL February (or 1st week of March 2013) 60Gh/s miner pre-order

Hi
I am too stupid to know any better, I know.
But I am interested in buying a BFL 60 Gh/s miner pre-order from February or early March 2013.
Also willing to consider a 30Gh/s pre-order if the price is interesting.
If anyone is selling, would you please PM me your best price (USD / GBP) and terms (Paypal, Wire Transfer, Escrow.com etc.) along with your order detail (date of pre-order, shipping paid etc.)
Can't pay via bitcoins, unfortunately.
And yes, I know the one about A fool and his money...
submitted by harryISbored to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

Please put an end to this sillyness. Purchasing from BFL would cause the price to fall more than it would cause the price to rise.

Several times in the past week I've seen this argument that tries to explain the rise in the price of a bitcoin. It goes basically like this:
"People are buying BFL products, and BFL only accepts bitcoins -- this must be causing the price to rise!"
This makes no sense.
BFL accepts bitcoins through bit-pay, but bit-pay pays BFL in dollars.
When bit-pay receives bitcoins, they sell them very soon after for dollars, in order to pay BFL in USD.
If anything, this would cause the price of a bitcoin to fall, because not everyone has to buy bitcoins in order to pay BFL -- but all of those coins are still sold in order to give dollars to BFL.
Examples of this argument popping up:
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/wkflv/bitcoins_fluctuating_price_a_simple_explanation/c5ei7q2
http://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/wn9c3/we_just_hit_800_on_mt_gox/c5eu9rp
Approximately 100 times per day between IRC and bitcointalk.
submitted by ferroh to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BFL: Nice discussion on their shipping tactics and delays

submitted by Bitc01n to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

bit_by_bit's mining-cost analysis is wrong - here's mine

bit_by_bit publishes a daily mining-cost-per-coin watch.
Though his work is thorough and commendable, it is unfortunately incorrect, and his conclusions naive.
I'm sure he has misled people on this board, so I'm here to set the record straight.
Roughly using bit_by_bit's assumptions:
achieves these costs per coin:
Miner Cost per coin
Cointerra TerraMiner IV $1985
KnC Neptune $2030
Bitfury BF3500 $1650
Bitmain Aintminer s3 $866
Bitmain Aintminer s2 $1305
Average $1570

However,

Given those two huge, highly variable (and unpredictable) factors, trying to work out a cost-per-coin is ... more-or-less impossible.
It's simply enough to assume that mining is extremely unprofitable at the moment and (probably) a very poor investment.
Here are some examples of variability:
Cointerra TerraMiner IV cost per coin
0% difficulty increase $759
20% difficulty increase $2640
15% difficulty, but starting at 30bn difficulty $3265

How are these numbers so different from bit_by_bits?

His calculations do not factor in an exponential difficulty increase. Instead, he says (in his maths) : "if the bitcoin network were composed of the miners here, and no extra miners are added/removed (i.e. difficulty remains the same) what would those miners (on average) achieve as a cost per coin over six months."

The problem with these numbers is

  1. The percentage of miners he uses to compose the network is unknowable, and as you see above, miner performance varies greatly. I'm quite sure that huge operations custom manufacture their machines and never sell them. Their performance is unknown. (an unknowable unknown)
  2. The makeup of the mining network in the future is unknowable, and difficulty will undoubtedly increase, but we can't know by how much. It has previously plateaued. Will it do the same? nobody knows.
  3. They assume the very latest miners, shipped immediately. Historically, new miners are not shipped on time. It's been suggested that the manufacturers keep them and do highly profitable day-zero mining with them.
Also, to suggest that it is possible to predict market movements (and depth) is naive as it asserts that demand is constant, and that supply is the major, or key, factor. This is highly unlikely to be the case.

Let's talk about mining's effect on bitcoin price or, first should we talk about the effect of the price of bitcoin on the mining industry?

The two are intimately linked chicken-and-egg in a feedback loop.
For a manufacturer to decide to make a rig, they need to design chips, get industry contacts, produce things (in china), make sure they work, then ship. They also need to get orders and decide if they are able to get the whole project in time for market.
These projects are multi-month/year, and I've heard success is largely decided by who you know in china (china's pretty busy already).
There is some kind of lag. Investors also pre-order, and must take a wild guess at future conditions with no guarantee whatsoever.
At times like now, where mining is so unprofitable, which miners are actually selling coins (at a loss)?
Large operations have large overheads, but to sell now, when the price might rise by 10x again would be idiotic.
So, really this "supply" aspect of the supply-demand equation is very difficult to get a decent hold on, though I would love somebody to attempt it as a PHD. The blockchain should provide some answers.
The other side of it (what miners will be produced) is also difficult to know. It could be that right now (with an unprofitable industry, and miners actually being quite close to desktop PC chip-size - i.e. as fast as humans can make them) no miners are in the pipe-line. This could (in crazy theory) lead to a zero difficulty increase for the lucky new owners of the above rigs. In that case, bit_by_bit's numbers would be spot on.
Unfortunately, it's absolutely unknowable.

So... why do people buy miners now?

Quite simply, getting your head around an exponential anything is hard. The exponential difficulty increase is a motherfucker. But it's good for bitcoin (it protects our network from meddlers).
Also, you could gamble that mining difficulty has to slow down... surely...

So...what?

In my experience, looking at price charts is far more informative about future market movements. But, whilst I've got the microphone, I would remind newbies not to trade their coins.

Show your workings!

Using this mining profitability calculator and inputing the "profitability decline per year" from this tool.
I'll work through Cointerra TerraMiner IV as an example.
meh meh
Difficulty 18,736,441,558
ghash 2000
Elec $0.15 (varies quite a bit from country-to country, like 0.7 canada to 0.2 UK?)
power 2200
time frame 6 months
hardware cost $6000
price per BTC 600
profitability decline 0.00882406
I got these numbers off bit_by_bit. I don't care about the details. My argument is that it's not an answerable question.
Result:
meh meh
Electricity cost $1446
Total cost $7446
Income 2553
Coins 2252/600 = 3.75 BTC
$/BTC 7446/3.75 = $1985
Please, if I've made a mistake, let me know and I'll send bit_by_bit some flowers.

"Why are you just posting stuff directly against another user: that's not cool"

Well, it's whatever motivates you eh?
I just go wound up by our discussions. But, I'm quite sure there are people on this board who don't know this stuff, so ... it's probably beneficial.
Have fun
EDIT: Ok, so I genuinely thought that I had made a fact-based post. Er, I added a few comments that I thought were funny, but I guess that wasn't a great idea. I removed one of my comments myself, but it's true that the moderators were in touch.....
And - to bit_by_bit, I am sorry, because some of the things I said were above and beyond "spirited discussion".
I absolutely agree that polite conduct is the way forward, and my initial "hang on a minute" reply to him was nice.
But, I do have to admit that this subject has wound me up a fair amount. I genuinely believe that he's made a quite serious mistake - but I am happy to be proved wrong. Right now - I just want to get to the bottom of this.
More Edit:

I am a miner

I didn't want to add this before, because I'm sure it (incorrectly) gives my argument more weight. But I need you to understand that bitcoin difficulty is a total motherfucker.
I pre-ordered a BFL single for 11BTC in May 2013. The difficulty was about 4 million, and I worked out I'd make 30BTC/day at those conditions.
It arrived at around 30 million difficulty, and I think now we're 18 billion.
I've made about 0.7 BTC mining, and It's on the limit of believability that I'll make 1BTC before I throw it in the bin. I have a suspicion that it will be useful in the future for some altcoin/blockchain like thing. Also, I got free heating (which was the whole reason I discovered bitcoin in the first place!)
Horrific loss. I think it makes about $1 more than it costs in electricity to run (at current price......)
This whole post is not a "bitter miner" but somebody who has experienced bitcoin's exponential difficulty First Hand. Honestly, it is unbelievable.
I genuinely think that the guy that does the profitability calculator deliberately does not explain what the 'profitability decline per year' is ... because he knows it will adversely harm bitcoin and the manufacture of miners.
Even More EDIT:

Am I sure I've got the difficulty increase thing right?

So, I've made a spreadsheet thing to see if the 0.0022 difficulty thing is right. It is.
All this table tells you is that in order to calculate 15% difficulty increase, you need to use a number LIKE 0.0022 in the 'profitability decline per year' box, and not 0.98 (which bit_by_bit calculated).
I've sanity checked my numbers against the 'profitability calculator' and they don't quite line up, but they're close enough. The difficulty is not the same either, but it's in the same region. I don't know why. Also, the months aren't exact fortnights, so they don't line up. These are details.
This proves my above workings to my satisfaction.

what is this horrible data?

It shows how much BTC your miner earns each 2 weeks (average difficulty change period). The last 2 rows (calc:) are from the profitability calculator website (and so are right). My attempt is on the left. Fortnight 13 is 6 months.
Oh, this graph uses 14.07% difficulty.
fortnight number "profitability decline" BTC earned BTC earned accumulated calculator says BTC
1 1 0.7518 0.7518 x
2 0.8593 0.64602174 1.39782174 1.361666667
3 0.73839649 0.555126481 1.952948221 x
4 0.634504104 0.477020185 2.429968406 2.295
5 0.545229376 0.409903445 2.839871852 x
6 0.468515603 0.35223003 3.192101882 2.938333333
7 0.402595458 0.302671265 3.494773147 x
8 0.345950277 0.260085418 3.754858565 3.378333333
9 0.297275073 0.2234914 3.978349965 x
10 0.25544847 0.19204616 4.170396125 3.68
11 0.21950687 0.165025265 4.33542139 x
12 0.188622254 0.14180621 4.477227601 3.888333333
13 0.162083103 0.121854077 4.599081677 x
14 0.13927801 0.104709208 4.703790885 4.03
15 0.119681594 0.089976622 4.793767508 x
16 0.102842394 0.077316912 4.871084419 3.213333333
17 0.088372469 0.066438422 4.937522842 x
18 0.075938463 0.057090536 4.994613378 4.195
19 0.065253921 0.049057898 5.043671276 x
20 0.056072694 0.042155452 5.085826727 4.241666667
21 0.048183266 0.03622418 5.122050907 x
22 0.041403881 0.031127437 5.153178344 4.273333333
23 0.035578355 0.026747807 5.179926151 x
24 0.03057248 0.022984391 5.202910542 4.295
25 0.026270932 0.019750487 5.222661028 x
26 0.022574612 0.016971593 5.239632622 x
2 bold numbers. 1 is approximately the 3.75 coins that gives you $1900 / coin whatever. 2 is the "profitability decline per year" as a tiny number. The pro tool comes up with 0.01095125 and I got 0.02257 but I don't care - it's close enough.
My whole point is that these numbers are totally unworkably all over the place. You can't calculate them meaningfully.

Dear Bit_by_Bit

I CANNOT BELIEVE the amount of effort that I have had to go to in order to show you that you made a minor mistake. (at time of writing you still deny it).
There is no doubt in my mind now that I was right in the first place. Your calculations do not include a significant difficulty increase.
I wish you well.
submitted by inteblio to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part IV: Monero "as it is now"

You can read here part III.
You can read this whole story translated into Spanish here
This is part IV, the last but not least.
Monero - A secure, private, untreceable cryptocurrency
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0
Notable comments in this thread:
-201: “I would like to offer 1000 MRO to the first person who creates a pool”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6422665#msg6422665)
[tacotime offers bounty to potential pool developer. Bytecoin devs haven’t released any code for pools, and the only existent pool, minergate (in the future related to BCN interests) was closed source]
-256: “Adam back seems to like CryptoNote the better than Zerocash https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/453493394472697856”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6440769#msg6440769)
-264: “update on pools: The NOMP guy (zone117x) is looking to fork his open source software and get a pool going, so one should hopefully be up soon.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6441302#msg6441302)
-273: “Update on GUI: othe from VertCoin has notified me that he is working on it.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6442606#msg6442606)
-356: “Everyone wanting a pool, please help raise a bounty with me here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589533.0
And for the GUI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=589561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6461533#msg6461533)
[5439 MRO + 0.685 BTC + 5728555.555 BCN raised for pool and 1652 XMR, 121345.46695471 BCN for the GUI wallet. Though this wallet was "rejected" as official GUI because wallet still has to be polished before building a GUI]
-437: “Yes, most Windows users should see a higher hashrate with the new build. You can thank NoodleDoodle. ”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6481202#msg6481202)
-446: “Even faster Windows binaries have just been uploaded. Install for more hash power! Once again, it was NoodleDoodle.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6483680#msg6483680)
-448: “that almost doubled my hashrate again! GREAT STUFF !!!”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6484109#msg6484109)
-461: “Noodle only started optimization today so there may be gains for your CPU in the future.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6485247#msg6485247)
[First day of miner optimization by NoodleDoodle, it is only May 1st]
-706: “The unstoppable NoodleDoodle has optimized the Windows build again. Hashrate should more than double. Windows is now faster than Linux. :O”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6549444#msg6549444)
-753: “i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561345#msg6561345)
[May, 5th 2014. TFT is launching FANTOMCOIN, a clone coin which its "only" feature was merged mining]
-761: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6561941#msg6561941) [May, 5th 2014 – eizh on emission curve and tail emission]
-791: “As promised, I did Russian translation of main topic.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6565521#msg6565521)
[one among dozens of decentralized and “altruist” collaborators of Monero in minor tasks]
-827: image
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6571652#msg6571652)
-853: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6575033#msg6575033)
[some are not happy that NoodleDoodle had only released the built binaries, but not the source code]
-950: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6593768#msg6593768)
[Rias, an account suspected to be related to the Bytecoin scam, dares to tag Monero as “instamine”]
-957: “It's rather bizarre that you're calling this an "instamine" scam when you're so fervently supporting BCN, which was mined 80% before entering the clearnet. Difficulty adjustments are per block, so there is no possibility of an instamine unless you don't publish your blockchain (emission is regular at the preset interval, and scales adequately with the network hash rate). What you're accusing monero of is exactly what ByteCoin did.”
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6594025#msg6594025
[Discussion with rias drags on for SEVERAL posts]
-1016: “There is no "dev team". There is a community of people working on various aspects of the coin.
I've been keeping the repo up to date. NoodleDoodle likes to optimise his miner. TFT started the fork and also assists when things break. othe's been working on a GUI. zone117x has been working on a pool.
It's a decentralized effort to maintain the fork, not a strawman team of leet hackers who dwell in the underbellies of the internet and conspire for instamines.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6596828#msg6596828)
-1023: “Like I stated in IRC, I am not part of the "dev team", I never was. Just so happens I took a look at the code and changed some extremely easy to spot "errors". I then decided to release the binary because I thought MRO would benefit from it. I made this decision individually and nobody else should be culpable”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597057#msg6597057)
[Noodledoodle gets rid of the instaminer accusations]
-1029: “I decided to relaunch Monero so it will suit all your wishes that you had: flatter emission curve, open source optimized miner for everybody from the start, no MM with BCN/BMR and the name. New Monero will be ready tomorrow”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597252#msg6597252)
[people trying to capitalize mistakes is always there.]
-1030: "Pull request has been submitted and merged to update miner speed
It appears from the simplicity of the fix that there may have been deliberate crippling of the hashing algorithm from introduction with ByteCoin."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6597460#msg6597460
[tacotime “officially” raises suspects of possible voluntarily crippled miner]
-1053: "I don't mind the 'relaunch' or the merge-mining fork or any other new coin at all. It's inevitable that the CryptoNote progresses like scrypt into a giant mess of coins. It's not undesirable or 'wrong'. Clones fighting out among themselves is actually beneficial for Monero. Although one of them is clearly unserious and trolling by choosing the same name.
Anyway, this sudden solidarity with BCN or TFT sure is strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm...? "
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599013#msg6599013
[eizh points out the apparent organized fudding]
-1061: "There was no takeover. The original developer (who himself did a fork of bytecoin and around a dozen lines of code changes) was non-responsive and had disappeared. The original name had been cybersquatted all over the place (since the original developer did not even register any domain name much less create a web site), making it impossible to even create a suitably named web site. A bunch of us who didn't want to see the coin die who represented a huge share of the hash power and ownership of the coin decided to adopt it. We reached out to the original developer to participate in this community effort and he still didn't respond over 24 hours, so we decided to act to save the coin from neglect and actively work toward building the coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6599798#msg6599798)
[smooth defends legitimacy of current “dev team” and decisions taken]
-1074: “Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).
Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote: […]"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6602891#msg6602891)
[comparison among Zerocash y Cryptonote]
-1083: "Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6603452#msg6603452)
[eizh reminds everyone the “first mover” advantage is a real advantage]
-1132: "I decided to tidy up bitmonero GitHub rep tonight, so now there is all valuable things from latest BCN commits & Win32. Faster hash from quazarcoin is also there. So BMR rep is the freshest one.
I'm working on another good feature now, so stay tuned."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619738#msg6619738)
[first TFT apparition in weeks, he somehow pretends to still be the "lead dev"]
-1139: "This is not the github or website used by Monero. This github is outdated even with these updates. Only trust binaries from the first post."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619971#msg6619971)
[eizh tries to clarify the community, after tft interference, which are the official downloads]
-1140: “The faster hash is from NoodleDoodle and is already submitted to the moner-project github (https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero) and included in the binaries here.
[trying to bring TFT back on board] It would be all easier if you just work together with the other guys, whats the problem? Come to irc and talk like everyone else?
[on future monero exchangers] I got confirmation from one."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6619997#msg6619997)
[8th may 2014, othe announces NoodleDoodle optimized miner is now open source, asks TFT to collaborate and communicates an exchanger is coming]
-1146: "I'll be impressed if they [BCN/TFT shills] manage to come up with an account registered before January, but then again they could buy those.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620257#msg6620257)
[smooth]
-1150: “Ring signatures mean that when you sign a transaction to spend an output (coins), no one looking at the block chain can tell whether you signed it or one of the other outputs you choose to mix in with yours. With a mixing factor of 5 or 10 after several transactions there are millions of possible coins all mixed together. You get "anonymity" and mixing without having to use a third party mixer.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6620433#msg6620433)
[smooth answering to “what are ring signatures” in layman terms]
-1170: "Someone (C++ skilled) did private optimized miner a few days ago, he got 74H/s for i5 haswell. He pointed that mining code was very un-optimized and he did essential improvements for yourself. So, high H/S is possible yet. Can the dev's core review code for that?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6623136#msg6623136)
[forums are talking about an individual or group of individuals with optimized miners - may 9th 2014]
-1230: "Good progress on the pool reported by NOMP dev zone117x. Stay tuned, everyone.
And remember to email your favorite exchanges about adding MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6640190#msg6640190)
-1258: "This is actually as confusing to us as you. At one point, thankful_for_today said he was okay with name change: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.msg6368600#msg6368600
Then he disappeared for more than a week after the merge mining vote failed.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6645981#msg6645981)
[eizh on the TFT-issue]
-1358: “Jadehorse: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=263597;sa=showPosts
Trustnobody: registered on 2014-03-06 and two pages of one line posts:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=264292;sa=showPosts
You guys should really just stop trying. It is quite transparent what you are doing. Or if you want to do it, do it somewhere else. Everyone else: ignore them please."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6666844#msg6666844)
[FUD campaign still ongoing, smooth battles it]
-1387: "The world’s first exchange for Monero just opened! cryptonote.exchange.to"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6675902#msg6675902)
[David Latapie announces an important milestone: exchanger is here]
-1467: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6686125#msg6686125)
[it is weird, but tft appears again, apparently as if he were in a parallel reality]
-1495: “http://monero.cc/blog/monero-price-0-002-passed/”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6691706#msg6691706)
[“trading” milestone reached: monero surpassed for first time 0.002 btc price]
-1513: "There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6693615#msg6693615)
[Smooth clears up again the relation with TFT and BMR. Every time he appears it seems to generate confusion on newbies]
-1543: "Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698097#msg6698097)
-1545: "[on the tail emission debate] I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed. The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.
Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:
Code: if (blockReward < 1){ blockReward = 1; }
I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6698879#msg6698879)
[Johnny Mnemonic wants to debate tail emission. Debate is moved to the “Monero Economy” thread]
-1603: “My GOD,the wallet is very very wierd and too complicated to operate, Why dont release a wallet-qt as Bitcoin?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6707857#msg6707857)
[Newbies have hard times with monero]
-1605: "because this coin is not a bitcoin clone and so there isnt a wallet-qt to just copy and release. There is a bounty for a GUI wallet and there is already an experimental windows wallet..."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6708250#msg6708250)
-1611: "I like this about Monero, but it seems it was written by cryptographers, not programmers. The damned thing doesn't even compile on Arch, and there are several bugs, like command history not working on Linux. The crypto ideas are top-notch, but the implementation is not."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6709002#msg6709002)
[Wolf0, a miner developer, little by little joining the community]
-1888: "http://198.199.79.100 (aka moneropool.org) successfully submitted a block. Miners will be paid for their work once payments start working.
P.S. This is actually our second block today. The first was orphaned. :/"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6753836#msg6753836)
[May 16th: first pool block]
-1927: "Botnets aren't problem now. The main problem is a private hi-performance miner"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759622#msg6759622)
-1927: "Evidence?"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6759661#msg6759661)
[smooth about the private optimized miner]
-1937: “[reference needed: smooth battling the weak evidence of optimized miner] Yes, I remember that. Some person on the Internet saying that some other unnamed person said he did something hardly constitutes evidence.
I'm not even doubting that optimized asm code could make a big difference. Just not sure how to know whether this is real or not. Rumors and FUD are rampant, so it is just hard to tell."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760040#msg6760040)
[smooth does not take the "proof" seriously]
-1949: "image
One i5 and One e5 connected to local pool:
image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760624#msg6760624)
[proof of optimized miner]
-1953: "lazybear are you interested in a bounty to release the source code (maybe cleaned up a bit?) your optimized miner? If not, I'll probably play around with the code myself tomorrow and see if I can come up with something, or maybe Noodle Doodle will take an interest."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760699#msg6760699)
[smooth tries to bring lazybear and his optimized miner on board]
-1957: "smooth, NoodleDoodle just said on IRC his latest optimizations are 4x faster on Windows. Untested on Linux so far but he'll push the source to the git repo soon. We'll be at 1 million network hashrate pretty soon."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6760814#msg6760814)
[eizh makes publics NoodleDoodle also has more miner optimizations ready]
-1985: “Someone (not me) created a Monero block explorer and announced it yesterday in a separate thread:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=611561.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6766206#msg6766206)
[May 16th, 2014: a functional block explorer]
-2018: “Noodle is doing some final tests on Windows and will begin testing on Linux. He expects hashrate should increase across all architectures. I can confirm a 5x increase on an i7 quad-core + Windows 7 64-bit.
Please be patient. These are actual changes to the program, not just a switch that gets flicked on. It needs testing.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770093#msg6770093)
[eizh has more info on last miner optimization]
-2023: “Monero marketcap is around $300,000 as of now”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6770365#msg6770365)
-2059: I was skeptical of this conspiracy theory at first but after thinking about the numbers and looking back at the code again, I'm starting to believe it.
These are not deep optimizations, just cleaning up the code to work as intended.
At 100 H/s, with 500k iterations, 70 cycles per L3 memory access, we're now at 3.5 GHz which is reasonably close. So the algorithm is finally memory-bound, as it was originally intended to be. But as delivered by the bytecode developers not even close.
I know this is going to sound like tooting our own horn but this is another example of the kind of dirty tricks you can expect from the 80% premine crowd and the good work being done in the name of the community by the Monero developers.
Assuming they had the reasonable, and not deoptimized, implementation of the algorithm as designed all along (which is likely), the alleged "two year history" of bytecoin was mined on 4-8 PCs. It's really one of the shadiest and sleaziest premines scams yet, though this shouldn't be surprising because in every type of scam, the scams always get sneakier and more deceptive over time (the simple ones no longer work)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6773168#msg6773168)
[smooth blowing the lid: if miner was so de-optimized, then BCN adoption was even lower than initially thought]
-2123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6781481#msg6781481)
[fluffypony first public post in Monero threads]
-2131: "moneropool.org is up to 2KHs, (average of 26Hs per user). But that's still only 0.3% of the reported network rate of 575Khs.
So either a large botnet is mining, or someone's sitting quietly on a much more efficient miner and raking in MRO."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782192#msg6782192)
[with pools users start to notice that “avg” users account for a very small % of the network hashrate, either botnets or a super-optimized miner is mining monero]
-2137: “I figure its either:
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6782852#msg6782852)
-2192: “New source (0.8.8.1) is up with optimizations in the hashing. Hashrate should go up ~4x or so, but may have CPU architecture dependence. Windows binaries are up as well for both 64-bit and 32-bit."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6788812#msg6788812)
[eizh makes official announce of last miner optimization, it is may 17th]
-2219: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6792038#msg6792038)
[wolf0 is part of the monero community for a while, discussing several topics as botnet mining and miner optimizations. Now spots security flaws in the just launched pools]
-2301: "5x optimized miner released, network hashrate decreases by 10% Make your own conclusions. :|"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6806946#msg6806946)
-2323: "Monero is on Poloniex https://poloniex.com/exchange/btc_mro"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6808548#msg6808548)
-2747: "Monero is holding a $500 logo contest on 99designs.com now: https://99designs.com/logo-design/contests/monero-mro-cryptocurrency-logo-design-contest-382486"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829109#msg6829109)
-2756: “So... ALL Pools have 50KH/s COMBINED.
Yet, network hash is 20x more. Am i the only one who thinks that some people are insta mining with prepared faster miners?”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6829977#msg6829977)
-2757: “Pools aren't stable yet. They are more inefficient than solo mining at the moment. They were just released. 10x optimizations have already been released since launch, I doubt there is much more optimization left.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830012#msg6830012)
-2765: “Penalty for too large block size is disastrous in the long run.
Once MRO value increases a lot, block penalties will become more critical of an issue. Pools will fix this issue by placing a limit on number and size of transactions. Transaction fees will go up, because the pools will naturally accept the most profitable transactions. It will become very expensive to send with more than 0 mixin. Anonymity benefits of ring signatures are lost, and the currency becomes unusable for normal transactions.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830475#msg6830475)
-2773: "The CryptoNote developers didn't want blocks getting very large without genuine need for it because it permits a malicious attack. So miners out of self-interest would deliberately restrict the size, forcing the network to operate at the edge of the penalty-free size limit but not exceed it. The maximum block size is a moving average so over time it would grow to accommodate organic volume increase and the issue goes away. This system is most broken when volume suddenly spikes."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6830710#msg6830710)
-3035: "We've contributed a massive amount to the infrastructure of the coin so far, enough to get recognition from cryptonote, including optimizing their hashing algorithm by an order of magnitude, creating open source pool software, and pushing several commits correcting issues with the coin that eventually were merged into the ByteCoin master. We also assisted some exchange operators in helping to support the coin.
To say that has no value is a bit silly... We've been working alongside the ByteCoin devs to improve both coins substantially."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845545#msg6845545)
[tacotime defends the Monero team and community of accusations of just “ripping-off” others hard-work and “steal” their project]
-3044: "image"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6845986#msg6845986)
[Monero added to coinmarketcap may 21st 2014]
-3059: "You have no idea how influential you have been to the success of this coin. You are a great ambassador for MRO and one of the reasons why I chose to mine MRO during the early days (and I still do, but alas no soup for about 5 days now)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846509#msg6846509)
[random user thanks smooth CONSTANT presence, and collaboration. It is not all FUD ;)]
-3068: "You are a little too caught up in the mindset of altcoin marketing wars about "unique features" and "the team" behind the latest pump and dump scam.
In fact this coin is really little more than BCN without the premine. "The team" is anyone who contributes code, which includes anyone contributing code to the BCN repository, because that will get merged as well (and vice-versa).
Focus on the technology (by all accounts amazing) and the fact that it was launched in a clean way without 80% of the total world supply of the coin getting hidden away "somewhere." That is the unique proposition here. There also happens to be a very good team behind the coin, but anyone trying too hard to market on the basis of some "special" features, team, or developer is selling you something. Hold on to your wallet."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846638#msg6846638)
[An answer to those trolls saying Monero has no innovation/unique feature]
-3070: "Personally I found it refreshing that Monero took off WITHOUT a logo or a gui wallet, it means the team wasn't hyping a slick marketing package and is concentrating on the coin/note itself."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6846676#msg6846676)
-3119: “image
[included for the lulz]
-3101: "[…]The main developers are tacotime, smooth, NoodleDoodle. Some needs are being contracted out, including zone117x, LucasJones, and archit for the pool, another person for a Qt GUI, and another person independently looking at the code for bugs."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6848006#msg6848006)
[the initial "core team" so far, eizh post]
-3123: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850085#msg6850085)
[fluffy steps-in with an interesting dense post. Don’t dare to skip it, worthwhile reading]
-3127: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6850526#msg6850526)
[fluffy again, worth to read it too, so follow link, don’t be lazy]
-3194: "Hi guys - thanks to lots of hard work we have added AES-NI support to the slow_hash function. If you're using an AES-NI processor you should see a speed-up of about 30%.”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857197#msg6857197)
[flufflypony is now pretty active in the xmr topic and announces a new optimization to the crippled miner]
-3202: "Whether using pools or not, this coin has a lot of orphaned blocks. When the original fork was done, several of us advised against 60 second blocks, but the warnings were not heeded.
I'm hopeful we can eventually make a change to more sane 2- or 2.5-minute blocks which should drastically reduce orphans, but that will require a hard fork, so not that easy."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6857796#msg6857796)
[smooth takes the opportunity to remember the need of bigger target block]
-3227: “Okay, optimized miner seems to be working: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
[wolf0 makes public his open source optimized miner]
-3235: "Smooth, I agree block time needs to go back to 2 minutes or higher. I think this and other changes discussed (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg6701490#msg6701490) should be rolled into a single hard fork and bundled with a beautiful GUI wallet and mining tools."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6861193#msg6861193)
[tail emission, block target and block size are discussed in the next few messages among smooth, johnny and others. If you want to know further about their opinions/reasonings go and read it]
-3268: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6862693#msg6862693)
[fluffy dares another user to bet 5 btc that in one year monero will be over dash in market cap. A bet that he would have lost as you can see here https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/20150524/ even excluding the 2M “instamined” coins]
-3283: "Most of the previous "CPU only" coins are really scams and the developers already have GPU miner or know how to write one. There are a very few exceptions, almost certainly including this one.
I don't expect a really dominant GPU miner any time soon, maybe ever. GPUs are just computers though, so it is certainly possible to mine this on a GPU, and there probably will be a some GPU miner, but won't be so much faster as to put small scale CPU miners out of business (probably -- absent some unknown algorithmic flaw).
Everyone focuses on botnets because it has been so long since regular users were able to effectively mine a coin (due to every coin rapidly going high end GPU and ASIC) that the idea that "users" could vastly outnumber "miners" (botnet or otherwise) isn't even on the radar.
The vision here is a wallet that asks you when you want to install: "Do you want to devote some of you CPU power to help secure the network. You will be eligible to receive free coins as a reward (recommended) [check box]." Get millions of users doing that and it will drive down the value of mining to where neither botnets nor professional/industrial miners will bother, and Satoshi's original vision of a true p2p currency will be realized.
That's what cryptonote wants to accomplish with this whole "egalitarian mining" concept. Whether it succeeds I don't know but we should give it a chance. Those cryptonote guys seem pretty smart. They've probably thought this through better than any of us have."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6863720#msg6863720)
[smooth vision of a true p2p currency]
-3318: "I have a screen shot that was PMed to me by someone who paid a lot of money for a lot of servers to mine this coin. He won't be outed by me ever but he does in fact exist. Truth."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6865061#msg6865061)
[smooth somehow implies it is not botnets but an individual or a group of them renting huge cloud instances]
-3442: "I'm happy to report we've successfully cracked Darkcoin's network with our new quantum computers that just arrived from BFL, a mere two weeks after we ordered them."
[fluffy-troll]
-3481: “Their slogan is, "Orphaned Blocks, Bloated Blockchain, that's how we do""
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6878244#msg6878244)
[Major FUD troll in the topic. One of the hardest I’ve ever seen]
-3571: "Tacotime wanted the thread name and OP to use the word privacy instead of anonymity, but I made the change for marketing reasons. Other coins do use the word anonymous improperly, so we too have to play the marketing game. Most users will not bother looking at details to see which actually has more privacy; they'll assume anonymity > privacy. In a world with finite population, there's no such thing as anonymity. You're always "1 of N" possible participants.
Zero knowledge gives N -> everyone using the currency, ring signatures give N -> your choice, and CoinJoin gives N -> people who happen to be spending around the same amount of money as you at around the same time. This is actually the critical weakness of CoinJoin: the anonymity set is small and it's fairly susceptible to blockchain analysis. Its main advantage is that you can stick to Bitcoin without hard forking.
Another calculated marketing decision: I made most of the OP about ring signatures. In reality, stealth addressing (i.e. one-time public keys) already provides you with 90% of the privacy you need. Ring signatures are more of a trump card that cannot be broken. But Bitcoin already has manual stealth addressing so the distinguishing technological factor in CryptoNote is the use of ring signatures.
This is why I think having a coin based on CoinJoin is silly: Bitcoin already has some privacy if you care enough. A separate currency needs to go way beyond mediocre privacy improvements and provide true indistinguishably. This is true thanks to ring signatures: you can never break the 1/N probability of guessing correctly. There's no additional circumstantial evidence like with CoinJoin (save for IP addresses, but that's a problem independent of cryptocurrencies)."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6883525#msg6883525)
[Anonymity discussions, specially comparing Monero with Darkcoin and its coinjoin-based solution, keep going on]
-3593: "Transaction fees should be a fixed percentage of the block reward, or at the very least not be controllable by the payer. If payers can optionally pay more then it opens the door for miner discrimination and tx fee bidding wars."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6886770#msg6886770)
[Johnny Mnemonic is a firm defender of fixed fees and tail emission: he see the “fee market” as big danger to the usability of cryptocurrencies]
-3986: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6930412#msg6930412)
[partnership with i2p]
-4373: “Way, way faster version of cpuminer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619373”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg6993812#msg6993812)
[super-optimized miner is finally leaked to the public. Now the hashrate is 100 times bigger than originally with crippled miner. The next hedge for "cloud farmers" is GPU mining]
-4877: “1. We have a logo! If you use Monero in any of your projects, you can grab a branding pack here. You can also see it in all its glory right here:
logo […] 4. In order to maintain ISO 4217 compliance, we are changing our ticker symbol from MRO to XMR effective immediately."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7098497#msg7098497)
[Jun 2nd 2014]
-5079: “First GPU miner: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=638915.0”
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7130160#msg7130160)
[4th June: Claymore has developed the first CryptoNight open source and publicly available GPU miner]
-5454: "New update to my miner - up to 25% hash increase. Comment and tell me how much of an increase you got from it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632724"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7198061#msg7198061)
[miner optimization is an endless task]
-5464: "I have posted a proposal for fixed subsidy:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg7202538#msg7202538"
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7202776#msg7202776)
[Nice charts and discussion proposed by tacotime, worth reading it]
-5658: "- New seed nodes added. - Electrum-style deterministic wallets have been added to help in the recovery of your wallet should you ever need to. It is enabled by default."
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7234475#msg7234475)
[Now you can recover your wallet with a 24 word seed]
-5726: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7240623#msg7240623)
[Bitcoin Pizza in monero version: a 2500 XMR picture sale (today worth ~$20k)]
-6905: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7386715#msg7386715)
[Monero missives: CryptoNote peer review starts whitepaper reviewed)]
-7328: (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7438333#msg7438333)
[android monero widget built]
This is a dense digest of the first several thousand messages on the definitive Monero thread.
A lot of things happened in this stressful days and most are recorded here. It can be summarized in this:
  • 28th April: Othe and zone117x assume the GUI wallet and CN pools tasks.
  • 30th April: First NoodleDoodle's miner optimization.
  • 11th May: First Monero exchanger
  • 13th May: Open source pool code is ready.
  • 16th May: First pool mined block.
  • 19th May: Monero in poloniex
  • 20th May: Monero +1100 bitcoin 24h trading volume in Poloniex.
  • 21st May: New official miner optimization x4 speed (accumulated optimization x12-x16). Open source wolf0's CPU miner released.
  • 25th May: partnership with i2p
  • 28th May: The legendary super-optimized miner is leaked. Currently running x90 original speed. Hedge of the "cloud farmers" is over in the cpu mining.
  • 2nd June: Monero at last has a logo. Ticker symbol changes to the definitive XMR (former MRO)
  • 4th June: Claymore's open source GPU miner.
  • 10th June: Monero's "10,000 bitcoin pizza" (2500 XMR paintig). Deterministic seed-based wallets (recover wallet with a 24 word seed)
  • March 2015 – tail emission added to code
  • March 2016 – monero hard forks to 2 min block and doubles block reward
There basically two things in here that can be used to attack Monero:
  • Crippled miner Gave unfair advantage to those brave enough to risk money and time to optimize and mine Monero.
  • Fast curve emission non-bitcoin-like curve as initially advertised and as it was widely accepted as suitable
Though we have to say two things to support current Monero community and devs:
  • The crippled miner was coded either by Bytecoin or CryptoNote, and 100% solved within a month by Monero community
  • The fast curve emission was a TFT miscalculation. He forgot to consider that as he was halving the block target he was unintentionally doubling the emission rate.
submitted by el_hispano to Monero [link] [comments]

BFL_Josh updates on ASIC status [full transcript]

Given this is the largest set of answers we've had from Josh in a while, and it's quite hard to parse the Shoutbox archive - here it is in its full glory: (edits for formatting)
BFL_Josh: Well guys, I had planned on updating everyone with a video of a board hashing here in KC tonight, but I haven't been able to get that together yet, so I'm probably going to have to push it off until tomorrow. We are targeting a start of shipment next week, but I'm not quite ready to commit to that at the moment, given our past estimates. It's imminent, though.
Lab_Rat: It hashes????
BFL_Josh: Yes, it hashes
BFL_Josh: I just don't have the firmware here in KC yet.
enkidu99: nice josh. does this mean you're able to get the next batch of wafers inbound as well?
BFL_Josh: I have to check on specifically where they are in the process, I've been primarily focused on the current batch.
Chip Geek: We need a few in the hands of customers before April 1 for the bitbet wager...
BFL_Josh: I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
BFL_Josh: Imma pull an Avalon all the way, it's a proven method!
Brian Harris: since the existing batch has been pushed back does that mean the subsequent batches will be moved forward?
BFL_Josh: Yes
Barrett: will there be any increase in the hash/rate as an bonus...
BFL_Josh: Probably not
Chip Geek: Still within the +/- 10% of the advertised spec though right?
BFL_Josh: I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
BFL_Josh: The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
BFL_Josh: Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
BFL_Josh: What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Buck’O: if we don't care about the power suck can we just go ahead and get ours ahead of those who do care? :)
BFL_Josh: Yes
enkidu99: josh would you consider swapping these units for "power optimized units" if we took them as is for now, at a later date (even for some fee)?
BFL_Josh: I don't know for sure, but probably.
Bogart: You guys didn;t already begin packaging the rest of the wafers?
BFL_Josh: the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
MrTeal: LOL... ANy chance you can ship out the first 5 units before the 1st, just for fun?
BFL_Josh: I'm going to try, not guarantees though. I would love to see that bet won, believe me.
Brian Harris: If you're just riffing about dates, to get orders through the middle of februrary filled, is it going to be like a 1 month gap from the initial batch?
BFL_Josh: it'll probably be more like two weeks.
Barrett: WILL the single still go 60gh// but with more power and heat..????
BFL_Josh: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
Lyke: Do all the devices have the power issues or just specific ones?
BFL_Josh: All devices, Lyke... they all use the same board and substrate.
0x3d: So how overclockable will these devices be then?
BFL_Josh: Well, that's a good question 0x3d: if we have to scale the hashrate back due to power, the chips themselves may end up more overclockable, but I honestly don't know at this point.
Steve Honaker: @Josh if shipping could start next week when is our advance notice to send in our FPGA's?
BFL_Josh: Steve: I should know more on that tomorrow [29 Mar]
SgtSpike: What's the current power usage?
BFL_Josh: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties.
BFL_Josh: Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
b1nary1sfun: well that's all we can ask for....but how many will ship, still the 1/3 plan?
BFL_Josh: Yeah, probably... although the 1/3 plan is just dumb in this current climate, but ti's what we've committed to.
Bogart: The cooling and the power supply stuff and the traces and everything else will need to handle the extra power.
BFL_Josh: If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
polrpaul: summarize the update for us, please
BFL_Josh: Dude seriously, chill out. I'm giving you what I can as far as information goes right now. We are not hashing with anyones units and we will ship as soon as we have product.
smracer: So you will get 2 30Gh machines for each 60?
BFL_Josh: If need be, yes.
X: josh honestly when did you think we will start seeing some units leave the factory?
BFL_Josh: I'm really thinking next week, but I will not commit to that until I have some more information.
polrpaul: is hte test rig sorted?
BFL_Josh: Yes, the test rig is sorted.
smith88: I hope you guys get the bug ironed out and do not have to ship multiples. You'll get it; a year from now everybody will look back and see history in the making.
BFL_Josh: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lab_Rat: well then worst case scenario for a single would be 360W???
BFL_Josh: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Lab_Rat: ok thank you. they can handle up to what 120W?
BFL_Josh: Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
onryo: Wont a x4 unit blow the power unit?
BFL_Josh: Yeah, so we'd have to back off the hashrate on a per unit basis if that were the case.
BFL_Josh: We'd do like 2x 30GH/s singles in stead of 1 60 GH/s one
BFL_Josh: We will ship the purchased hashrate regardless of what it ends up costing us.
MrTeal: @BFL_Josh, do the LIttle Singles have all of the power supply circuitry populated, and could they run at 30GH/s even if the Big Single can't run at 60GH/s?
BFL_Josh: Yes
HTL2001: I think he means, if you ordered a big single they might do 2x little singles since the power limit is per board, not per chip
BFL_Josh: [HTL2001 is] correct
SysRun: Asking again, what are the remaining steps?
BFL_Josh: Just mounting, assembly and shipping.
smracer: So people that ordered a minirig will get 2 minirigs at half the hashrate?
BFL_Josh: yes
Crystallas: Are you able to share how many orders are currently committed?
BFL_Josh: No, sorry.
kaega: Did you say and estimate on the production line output? 100/day? etc?
BFL_Josh: I estimate around 400 a day on average in the beginning just to clear back orders.
X: josh do we have any idea of if we will reach sept or aus orders in this batch
BFL_Josh: In the first 5 wafers? No, I doubt it.
jjiimm64: Josh, will the paired down units still have all the chips in them?
BFL_Josh: Yes they will
kaega: thanks for the reply. How long to get caught up (estimated)? By June? I placed additional order 3 weeks ago or so.
BFL_Josh: I should have a better idea on that in the next few days.
Barrett Griner IV: Will BFL work through Easter weekend.....to get units out...
BFL_Josh: Yes, if need be
onryo:if you guys could make a rig in the 10k USD range a lot more people might be intested....
BFL_Josh: I agree 100%. I have been floating that for awhile, but we've been so focused on otehr thigns, we haven't gotten down that road yet.
oldbushie: so... 300 whats a day? boards? chips? shipments?
BFL_Josh: 400 completed units a day
Barrett Griner IV: So at this point the 8 Chip single will now be 2x 4 chip singles....will that continue....or til the bug is fixed...
Ivan Frimmel: BUG?
BFL_Josh: There is no bug
BFL_Josh: Sorry I don't have the video guys, I really wanted to float that tonight.
Lyke: would have been great to see video - Guess we'll see tomorrow?
BFL_Josh: Yeah, tomorrow should be good I hope!
SysRun: Josh, every time you use the word 'should' you are now required to put a bitcent in the 'should' jar. BFL_Josh: Not a bad idea
submitted by willphase to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

BFL lied to customers, I may as well share how they flat out lied to us as well

might as well post these emails since shit's hitting the fan
Hi [killhamster],
Thanks for your patience. It looks like the site issues are mostly fixed.
My name is Jeff Scott and I bought Buttcoin.org because I believe there is space for an Onion type parody site in the Bitcoin world. But let me be clear - I like Bitcoin. I believe in it. I also know many of the companies who operate in Bitcoin. Some of the owners of these companies are friends of mine. And thankfully, many of them have a sense of humor and understand parody.
In order for Buttcoin.org to survive, it needs to generate revenue. In order to generate revenue, you need to attract advertising from the people who are making money in Bitcoin. My job is to sell this "parody" business model to them and convince them that we can do our parody in a way that will make fun of them and Bitcoin but won't hurt their businesses. If we can walk that fine line, we can generate revenue and still remain cutting edge and humorous.
While I don't necessarily agree with whitewashing bad news, I think stories can be told in a way to take digs at companies and products without harming their reputation too much.
The article about Butterfly Labs at the top of your popular stories is a good example. Do you know how much money Butterfly Labs has made in this industry? It's quite a bit. And they advertise a lot. That customer alone would pay for our expense (and more) per month. But they would never advertise with us in the current state.
The bottom line is this - Buttcoin.org will not be forum troll bait any more. Bitcoin is bigger than Bitcointalk and Reddit. We're in new territory. If we want to capture revenue, we need to build this site into something new. We have to change the way we write stories.
One of the first things we need to do is clean up some of these older articles. The Butterfly Labs article is an example because it's a top story. I took a stab at making the post positive for now until we can figure out our "new voice." I need to start attracting advertisers. I would like you to rewrite the Butterfly Labs stories so they are not forum troll slams, but parody. Here's an example of a headline that would take a dig at the company and Bitcoin but maybe give them a little boost.
Current headline: The Butterfly Labs Mini-rig is a huge broken unstable piece of shit. (it has been proven that while you might not get rich with one, the product is not that bad) Possible new headline: Butterfly Labs Mini-rigs Mine Detroit Out Of Bankruptcy. "The Detriot city council finally took delivery of 2 Mini-rigs from Butterfly Labs..."
This is just an example I thought off the top of my head. It takes a dig at Bitcoin, the fact that the Mini-rig will not make anyone rich, but at the same time doesn't offend a possible advertiser.
So, this is the direction I want to go. There is a place and budget for a writer who can help make this happen. If you think it's you, please let me know and we can work on moving forward. If you cannot accept this new direction, we will have to part ways right now.
Thanks
A second, clarifying email
I don't necessarily want to tone down the site. I just want advertisers.
I understand your feelings about Butterfly Labs. I know the industry quite well. Avalon had issues, KnC had boards explode in the wild and I don't see any articles nailing them for shipping less than perfect products. Every single hardware manufacturer has missed their target dates for delivery. It's not just BFL.
BFL did just ship out 45,000 bitcoin miners which is a pretty big task for a company that started 2 years ago and I know they are replacing units that are not functioning. But this is not the point. They pay another site (I know the owner) $1000 a month to run banners. I can make a deal with them overnight. This doesn't mean I am tying myself to them. It means I am taking their money. I'm not sure how much [FCKGW] was paying you to write, but I think he mentioned a % of revenue and adsense couldn't be making that much.
Let's make fun of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Mining, but try to stay brand neutral.
Let me know if you're interested.
after we caught them saying the BFL minirig is a big sexy mining machine
The BFL stuff is temporary. I want to rewrite them later. If you want to change the author on them for now that's fine. I'll do that. I'm working on a deal for ad space with them. It's an olive branch.
Sorry slammed today. Will answer the rest soon.
Thanks
after these it was mostly me saying "hey the site is down check it out" and him saying "OK"
submitted by killhamster to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

[USA-IL][H] 4 Antminer S4 2.0 TH/s bitcoin miners with cables, Antminer S1, Butterfly Labs Single, power supply [W] Local cash [Chicago & NW burbs]

timestamp and pictures
Selling ≈ 8.2 TH/s worth of bitcoin mining equipment in the following configuration:
4x 2.0 TH/s Antminer S4 bitcoin miners with internal PSUs and power cords
1x 180 GH/s Antminer S1 bitcoin miner
1x 60 GH/s Butterfly Labs "Single" bitcoin miner
1x Dynex DX-520WPS PSU with cables to power the S1 and the BFL single
Everything works as it should within spec for performance, heat, and power consumption. The Antminers' cases show evidence of being moved and re-setup a few times (because they have been) but all issues are cosmetic only. The biggest blemish is a rip in the plastic protective layer over one of the status LCDs on the front of the S4 units.
Asking $1300 for the whole bundle, local cash at pickup or delivery within 50 miles of 60169.
submitted by Skepticalasian to hardwareswap [link] [comments]

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

(This was a rather controversial article posted on Buttcoin.org and became quite popular, even moving to the top of /bitcoin. It's since been mysteriously edited on the site [maybe by g-g-g-ghosts!] so it's being reposted here for posterity's sake. Some numbers may be off by now, but it was all accurate at the time of posting.)
Butterfly Labs has a long and horrible history with their mining rigs. They started taking pre-orders over a year ago, with a ship time sometime in late July. After numerous delays in production, shipping problems and general incompetence, the only thing they’ve managed to get out the door are some of their tiniest miners, the Jalapenos. And those mainly ended up in the hands of reviewers and blogs in order to keep pumping the Butterfly Labs hype train and securing millions of dollars of pre-orders still in limbo.Lucky BFL forums user Luke-JR however scored a sweet Mini Rig from Butterfly Labs (it’s just a coincidence he’s a driver developer for them I’m sure). This rig was originally promised to produce 1500 GH/s hashing power at 1500 watts for $30,000, but has since seen it’s hashing power slashed to a third of what was promised and it’s power consumption increased 75%, now just offer 500 GH/s at 2400 watts. They’ve promised to make good on pre-order buy sending out 3 rigs to match the initial hashing rate, so now it’s only 1500 GH/s at 6900 watts, a reduction in GH/Watt by a factor of 5.
So what does $22,484 buy you? Take a look!
Minirig is here! Today, my Minirig arrived.
http://i.imgur.com/Yp0WPvE.jpg
FedEx apparently dropped it somewhere along the way, and the weakest part of the case, the thin metal part around the back of the PSU, broke.
http://i.imgur.com/lFcOHxP.jpg
I’m not sure how sturdy the back side was supposed to be, but its two pieces aren’t quite together either.
http://i.imgur.com/AVttcOt.jpg
The power supplies (EVGA 1500W) also created havoc interfering with the neutral on the power line. This disrupted X10 communication significantly enough that the pool overflowed because the system controlling it was unable to turn off the pump. Workaround: This PSU supports 240V, so we rewired the outlet. 240V does not use neutral, so now all should be okay.
Edit: 240V workaround is only partial. Still having problems
But the good news is, it all seems to be working for the most part.
Next up, installing it in the window so the heat goes outside
A twenty two thousand dollar box of electronics that is broken out of the box, that required the guy to do a sketchy electrical workaround to get partially working, that he is going to install in a window… and he’s happy about it?
In case you didn’t notice it, the delivered unit is different than the picture on the website. They had to install 2 power supplies instead of 1 and had to modify the case to fit. Also, if you didn’t notice, the LCD/Phone thingy in the front has been replaced by … a piece of cardboard spray painted black. Wonderful.
You could maybe chalk this up to a careless Fedex postman, but when you’re shipping something that costs as much as a mid-sized sedan, how bought putting a little more effort into packing? Dell and HP can ship bigger and heavier servers across the world without this kind of problem.
The unit had to hit its huge power draw increase by putting dual EVGA consumer grade power supplies in the unit. We’re talking almost a 75 amp load (6*1500/120), disregarding power factor. He could very well overload the circuit panel and trip the main breaker for the house.
Let’s take a look inside this guy.
This is from an earlier version of the Minirig (note the single power supply) This is apparently from an earlier FPGA but it will give you a good glimpse at what kind of craftsmanship you can expect from a computer that is half the average household income in the United States.
Consumer grade PSU and cheap USB hubs glued to the inside case.
Electrical tape and random velcro glued to the insides
A closer look at the USB hubs. Plugs are hot glued to stay secured.
Electrical tape everywhere, splices and voided hardware are the theme.
You can view the entire album here.
Despite all that, this thing can still mine bitcoins and it should be profitable. Keep in ind that many people jumped in on the preorders a year ago when bitcoins were still hovering around $6.50 per. Meaning customers paid 1562 bitcoins for that particular piece of shit, which at today’s value is $156,200. Aston martin money. How long will it take them to make their money back (as apposed to just hanging on to them)? If the difficulty didn’t change, they would make 37 bitcoins a day and recoup the initial investment in 124 days. Difficulty is jumping pretty much 20% every 12 days or so, so in the next week before adjustment, they’ll make 259, the next 12 days 369, the next 12 days 312, then 256, then 213, etc.
So by day 127, they’ll be halfway to breaking even, but by day 151 they’ll be making less than 5 bitcoins a day, and even if difficulty stopped rising at that point(which it won’t), it would take another 435 days for a total of 586 days to break even. If difficulty kept rising at the same pace, by day 200 they’d be making 2.4 bitcoins per day, and it would take 1024 days to break even with no difficulty increase. Assuming 25 cents per kw/h, and $100 a bitcoin, it would cost 0.43 of a bitcoin per day in electricity which means the unit would no longer be profitable on a power usage basis by day 307, at which point it will have produced 2620 bitcoins.
Bear in mind this is only for the first few units, and that’s running 24/7 pumping out around 24,000 BTU, so yes, medical bills from heat stroke will be on top of that.
But Alas, the chips don’t run nearly as well as they’re supposed to, frequently running too hot and giving multiple hardware failures. Coindesk noted in one of the first ever runs of the Minirig by hosting provide gigavps that it was running much too hot and erroring out.
At the time of posting, gigavps warned that the unit would be repeatedly shut down while ckolivas, who was assisting, modified the machine’s software to optimise performance. After some tweaking, the device was said to have been left to run continuously for two hours, and was shown to have an average hash rate of 478.1 GH/s. As you can see in the table below, ASIC number four (of a total of eight hashing chips) ran significantly hotter (86 degrees) and consequently gave the highest hardware (HW) error rate.
http://i.imgur.com/q3iGrnb.jpg
So, what happens if you just decide you don’t want this, you don’t want to wait over a year to get a $22,000 broken piece of shit? Nothing, because BFL won’t let you cancel your preorder because they’re now “shipping”, i.e. they sent out one unit to their own company shill.
http://i.imgur.com/0p3Up03.jpg
Which is of course illegal regardless of what Butterfly Labs may say.
So in summary: Don’t buy anything from Butterfly Labs … ever.
submitted by borderpatrol to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

How to setup a 60 GH/s Butterfly Labs BFL Single SC ASIC Miner A Look at the BFL Jalapeno and Little Single ASIC Bitcoin Miners BFL BitForce SHA256 Single - YouTube Butterfly Labs bitcoin setup, jalapeño, single BFL Single - Best Bitcoin Hasing Method

Butterfly Labs BFL Little Single BF0050G ASIC Bitcoin BTC SHA-256 Miner 60GH/s. 4 out of 5 stars (1) 1 product ratings - Butterfly Labs BFL Little Single BF0050G ASIC Bitcoin BTC SHA-256 Miner 60GH/s. $35.00. $5.00 shipping. or Best Offer. 22 watching. Watch. Butterfly Labs Jalapeno SHA-256 Bitcoin ASIC Miner - Original Packaging . $150.00. $25.00 shipping. or Best Offer. Watch. Butterfly labs ... Bitcoin is the currency of the Internet: a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Unlike traditional currencies such as dollars, bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. The BFL single produces high stale rates on P2Pool because of the way its firmware is designed. The BFL does 2^32 hashes and then reports any shares found. This takes it about 5 seconds. With solo mining or typical pools, the work unit you get is valid for several minutes or until a new block is found (on average, one every ten minutes). So the average delay of 2-1/2 seconds between when you ... Ich bin mit einem BFL single mit dem BitMinter client und ich sehe nie meine Mhps überschreiten 825 und es geht oft runter bis 780 MHP. Was könnte eine Erklärung für diese Differenz? Sind die Angaben auf BFL theoretische Geschwindigkeit? Ist die closed-source-BitMinter client zu stehlen Zyklen? Ist es ein software-oder hardware-Ineffizienz? Bitcoin » Bitcoin mining » BFL Single SC 60GH PSU Failure...how do I fix this? Advertise with us (we do not endorse any site advertised) « previous next » Print; Pages: [1] Go Down. Author Topic: BFL Single SC 60GH PSU Failure...how do I fix this? (Read 3239 times) 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. GigaWave. Newbie ; Joined: Oct 2013; Posts: 2; Karma: +0/-0 ...

[index] [21995] [46920] [47801] [14594] [5030] [41014] [24512] [23283] [43652] [20902]

How to setup a 60 GH/s Butterfly Labs BFL Single SC ASIC Miner

A Look at the BFL Jalapeno and Little Single ASIC Bitcoin Miners - Duration: 20:05. Photon939 29,165 views. 20:05. How Bitcoin Works Under the Hood - Duration: 22:25. ... *** THIS WAS ONLY A JOKE - PLAYING AROUND WITH A VIDEO EDITOR *** From www.butterflylabs.com BitForce SHA256 Single - Technical Specifications Raw performanc... T4D #84 - Pt 2 Bitcoin Mining, BFL ASIC vs FPGA vs GPU vs CPU - Duration: 28:50. mjlorton 63,656 views. 28:50 . Off Grid Winch: Making a Flip Flop Winch - Duration: 12:30. Survival Sherpa ... Bitcoinmine with BFL-Singles Bitforce SHA256 Miningspeed 8 BFL-Singles = 7 Gh/s Total Bitcoinmine = 15 Gh/s Bitcoin mining with Butterfly Labs "Micro"-Rig In... A Look at the BFL Jalapeno and Little Single ASIC Bitcoin Miners - Duration: 20:05. Photon939 29,170 views. 20:05. Pomp Podcast #251: ...

#