Whats the best bitcoin miner for someone that just wants to explore how it works
I just want to buy one and not have a jank with power sources. Something that can run off a standard outlet in the US that inst super noisy. The goal is not efficiency just something that can mine without a ton of technical requirements and isn't loud. Was looking at the T17 but generates like 80db of noise and not sure standard outlets would work without a converter or something like that. Thanks!
Hearing people saying the miners have too much power shows total lack of understanding of how bitcoin was supposed to work - they're the closest thing to shareholders in bitcoin.
Which is why Blockstream spreads hate on them as a competitor which can't compete with them (bitcoin can't be stopped) so it overrides them by imposing artificial regulation (essentially centralized government).
Heating my motor home while earning money with Bitcoin mining? My whole bus is heated by my computer and miner and that is all that's needed so far as temps float around 30°. This episode dives into how it all works.
Bitcoin Cash hashrate is at all time high. Miners are putting ideology before profit mining BCH at a relative loss to BTC. Does not matter what side you are rooting for: This is _exactly_ how its intended to work, and its beautiful!
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
The title of this post is a compressed summary combining some important quotes from several recent comments by u/ForkiusMaximus, which I thought were worth highlighting here in a post of their own. His comments remind us that Bitcoin was already brilliantly designed by Satoshi so that the majority of "honest""intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always be economically incentivized to use their hashpower to vote for the rule changes which will maximize their (and everyone else's) Bitcoin profits - and they will always do this regardless of any censorship or centralized dev teams. Meanwhile, Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) totally fail to understand this subtle but vital point: they think that devs somehow control Bitcoin, by forcing people to run certain code... or moderators somehow control Bitcoin, by censoring certain forums... or now non-mining nodes can somehow control Bitcoin by suggesting a futile and pointless "user-activated soft-fork" (UASF) - ie a fork not supported by actual mining hashpower. This all shows that Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the most important aspect of Bitcoin - the fact that:
Bitcoin is controlled by not by devs... or censors... or non-mining nodes.
Bitcoin is controlled by the economic incentives designed by Satoshi, where the vast majority of "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always use their hashpower to vote for the rules which will maximize their Bitcoin profits (and our Bitcoin profits as well :-).
This is why the 21 million coin cap will never get increased. And this is why blocksizes will always continue to moderately increase. Not because some dev team made it "hard" to modify these settings in the code. And not because some moderator censored some discussion about some alternative clients. The reason Bitcoin works is simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking". This is why mining support for Core/Blockstream's centrally-planned blocksize has dropped to 2/3 of network hashpower (despite their big team of "experts" and all their censorship and fiat funding). And this is why 1/3 of mining hashpower has already started voting for some form of market-driven blocksizes... ... not because BU or Classic suddenly "gave" them this power (after all, they always had this power themselves)... ... but simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking", and they know that bigger blocks will bring higher profits. So, miners have always been able to use their hashpower (and even modify the Bitcoin client source code if they wanted) in order to vote for rule changes which would support bigger blocksizes and higher Bitcoin profits for everyone - with or without any help from BU, Classic, etc. - and there is nothing that any dev team (or any censored forum) can do to prevent miners from doing this. So it is inevitable that miners will use their hashpower to vote for bigger blocksizes, because this means much higher Bitcoin profits for them (and also bigger Bitcoin profits for the rest of us :-)... simply because (as Satoshi clearly did understand, but most Core/Blockstream devs clearly do not understand):
The vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".
We don't have to trust [miners] to be "honest" as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. Replace the term honest with "intelligently profit-seeking." Bitcoin assumes miners are intelligently profit-seeking, meaning that they have a decent enough read on what the ecosystem wants that they can and will make any necessary changes to please the ecosystem and thus boost their own bottom line. Greg's recent comments on BU totally discredited him, as he revealed himself to have no friggin' idea how Bitcoin works. He actually thought "honest" meant something like "plays by Core rules." That's a completely broken understanding of Bitcoin, and implies centralization. It's the kind of misconception I'd expect from a run-of-the-mill nobody on a forum, not from the mighty leader of Core/BS. I'm kinda pissed I wasted mental clock ticks trying to debate this guy without realizing he has not just a flawed understanding, but zero understanding of how Bitcoin works at all. And of course all his supporters parrot his nonsense view of how Bitcoin supposedly works.
Mining control is the key invention of Bitcoin. It's how it doesn't just devolve into yet another failed subjective monetary scheme. If you don't like it, you should figure out another scheme. Perhaps proof of stake is more your thing? Also, it's pretty amazing that you think just because BU makes it more convenient for miners to do what they always could do, that that somehow dooms Bitcoin. If that dooms it, it was already a dead man walking. How do you propose to stop miners from altering their own blocksize settings? If you have no answer, you have no grounds to attack BU without falling into the category of being a Bitcoin skeptic.
It's actually fairly subtle: mining IS how you vote for rule changes, BUT miners have every incentive to vote with the market, so they DON'T have any meaningful ability to push rules on the community (even under BU). There is no trust or "honesty" involved, as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. There is only the underlying assumption that makes Bitcoin work: the assumption that the vast majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. The only way this system can break is if the majority of miners seek something other than profit (say a government took the major mining pools over and somehow hashers couldn't switch away in time), or the miners misjudge what the market wants (due to a failure of market communication). However, in this case and on these timescales it is obvious the current crop of miners are generally profit-seeking. And if they are misjudging the market, we have a remedy: we can resolve that through fork futures trading on the exchanges. Note that this is just moving the decision from the first kind of investors (miners) to the general investing public. Miners are a first-line proxy for investors in general. If they fail to reflect investor will, investors are free to take it to the market by forking and trading the two sides of the fork (preferably as futures so as to avoid scrambling to upgrade urgently). Also important would be to maximize freedom of discussion so that market communication is not distorted. Finally, the whole idea of the UASF people, that we would poll the ecosystem somehow to prove the economic majority wants some change, already means that merely showing this proof to the miners should convince them, as they are intelligently profit-seeking. But that obviates the need for a UASF in the first place (!).
I used to think they don't understand markets, but in fact they are stuck at an even more basic level than that. I took a spin through the wreckage of /Bitcoin today for the first time in weeks. It was pleasantly surprising to see how with the ramping up of miner support for BU, the Core arguments have been reduced to obvious fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin that are now trivial to rebut. In a word, they haven't actually grasped the concept of incentives. This goes all the way to the top, not just the supporters but the key Core devs themselves. They don't understand markets, yes, but it's not like they are even close. They lack the understanding of even the fundamental building blocks of markets. When you think about it, governance by incentives is pretty subtle. Even if one reads the whitepaper and goes, "Oh yeah I see, miners would be motivated not to kill the golden goose in that situation," it is quite another matter to fully internalize the fact that the only reason Bitcoin is a thing at all is because of the assumption that miners are not idiots. Or more accurately, that miners as a group will never have a gross failure to correctly apprehend the wishes of the market. This is the source of all the weird claims about miners controlling or not controlling Bitcoin. Core and Blockstream dev Matt Corallo thinks that if miners were allowed to (not mentioning how they could be disallowed to), they would mine extra coins for all the "extra profits." Again this goes beyond failing to understand markets, all the way down to failing to understand or take seriously incentives as a concept at all. I'm not blaming him, he's a coder; I blame those who take his commentary on non-coding matters seriously, merely by dint of his coding skill. A constant refrain from Core supporters as BU gain hashpower is that "miners don't control Bitcoin." This is actually correct: miners don't control Bitcoin, they won't act against the economic majority. But not because they can't. They certainly can, just like oncoming traffic can swerve toward you on the freeway. But they don't, because that would destroy them as well. Thus is the subtlety of governance by incentives. Miners have control, but they won't use it to do anything that displeases the ecosystem, on balance. Or they might, but in that case Bitcoin is a failed concept as its fundamental assumption is then proven to be broken. Many or most anti-BU arguments unwittingly take that form: they start with the premise that Bitcoin is broken [i.e., miners are idiots or that they grossly fail to read the market] and reason from there to conclude that BU is broken. Examples include the median EB attack, the various big block attacks, and the bizarre claim that BU has a "new security model" because it "lets miners do something they couldn't before" (ironically implying Core has snuck in a new security model where they try to restrain miners by making it inconvenient for them to change a blocksize setting). Hence we see that it isn't merely a matter of Core and Blockstream people having initially dismissed Bitcoin and then later seeing the light when the price rises forced them to look deeper. They in fact still haven't seen the light. They never fully understood the basic dynamic that makes Bitcoin tick, let alone understanding higher level concepts like markets. This is why they so easily fall into the central planning mindset, seeing Bitcoin as a fragile little thing that must be defended by their wise paternalistic guidance. The Core devs have replaced the fundamental assumption in the whitepaper, that most miners are honest (I prefer "most miners are not idiots" as it is harder to misinterpret), with the fundamental assumption that the right set of people (or the right repository governance structure) is in charge of the "reference implementation." This manifests as a kind of envy toward the miners and comes with all the other curious trappings of the Core worldview: the code is the spec, hard forks are dangerous, Core = Bitcoin, anything that deviates from Core diktats is an "altcoin," it doesn't count as censorship to delete discussion of alternative clients as they are "off topic," nodes > miners, anything that makes it a bit easier for miners to do something Core doesn't like is an "attack" on Bitcoin, centralized control by Core is necessary to preserve decentralization, UASF is a viable idea, Segwit has consensus among "the Bitcoin experts," and so on.
Estimated Core hashrate down below 2/3 already. Core has lost supermajority status, even with all the historical inertia, miner conservatism, and crackerjack programmers they are reported to have on their side. Even with the "consensus" of "the experts." Even with two years of mindbendingly extreme censorship in their favor on the two biggest Bitcoin discussion forums.
The Core devs have directly created this situation by keeping the blocksize cap locked down long after it became controversial. The logic of how users make needed changes to the protocol, as mentioned in the whitepaper, requires that users be able to easily adjust any settings that are controversial, so as to be able to "vote with their CPU" power in a smooth manner. Core tries to leverage their waning "reference implementation" status to rig the vote by deliberately leaving the now maximally controversial blocksize limit hard-coded, forcing the user to venture out into relatively new dev team offerings if they want to cast a vote. This is exactly how you create the conditions for a contentious split. They have brought this upon themselves entirely.
Adam implies BU is pre-alpha, yet it is winning in the only arena where people actually put their money where their mouths are. How pathetic does it make Core that they are losing to a pre-alpha client?
06-12 11:54 - 'Seems like a lot of what you said just isn’t how it works / Edit: the number of mining devices shouldn’t be affected and if anything there would be fewer miners running / being sold if the profitability drops from the reward...' by /u/butterball6 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min
''' Seems like a lot of what you said just isn’t how it works Edit: the number of mining devices shouldn’t be affected and if anything there would be fewer miners running/ being sold if the profitability drops from the reward having. Electricity costs also stay the same. Profitability drops for all mining operations by the same proportion and if the price of bitcoin doubled at the same time then profitability would match what it was before the halving and everything would be basically the same in terms of mining. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: butterball6
"As the block reward runs out, either transaction fees subsidize miners, or the chain dies. That is how bitcoin is *supposed* to work. But we learned this week that anything goes to protect a chain. Expect 21 million coins to be thrown out the window in the name of security."
ESEA stabbed to death overnight? The great conspiracy!
Just now before I went to sleep I deceided to check up on reddit and remembering the night before there was some stuff about the esea client farming bitcoins with our gpu's but it was late and I went to bed. There has been an explosion of posts and stuff to happen and for someone who comes here every day its quite a surprise. I think the amount of posts against ESEA and the amount promoting leetway is ridiculous, it feels off, like a coup. ESEA is just getting crucified. I watched warowls video on the matter and I think its the first time I really heard anger in his voice. Ofcourse, its true having a client installed of wich you are not allowed to know exactly what it does needs a bond of trust. That trust has now been broken. And who happens to pop up with timing of a dust2 mid door awp shot? Leetway.. and be carefull who you put your trust in this time, affiliate of www.nerdbuster.com a horrible gamer tabloid blog rumoured to be linked to hacking, ddossing and even extortion. But leetway isnt the only player in the scene looking to win some ground back, the perfectly timed valve update giving us 2 flashbangs. If this truly was a minor update and 128tick servers are around the corner then the circle is complete for me. Maybe im naive and have to much forgiveness but my advice is to give esea another chance and see if they can make up for it. Nobody can tell me that a company build on gamers and computer enthusiasts consists only of evil men out to get your money. There was someone who commented
"Whoever put the bitcoin miner into the esea client clearly didn't have a very good understanding on how bitcoin miners work. From yours and other posts it sounds like it was running cards 100%, which is a terrible idea if you are doing so surreptitiously. There are settings that let you run your card(s) at different 'aggressions'"
I would seem to me that if it would be a masterplan to mine all these bitcoins they would atleast have programmed it so it wouldnt be this obvious. I believe its not a company wide idea but as said the input of 1 or few people, who knows it was all an elloborate scam set up by leetway to knock esea of its throne. In any case Ill be looking forward to my free month premium on ESEA, altough im still mainly sticking with improving my ranks on european ESL Well plenty food for thought, off to bed. Greetings Neoblade
I agree with Satoshi on the fundamental mechanism of how Bitcoin works: Bitcoin works based on ECONOMIC INCENTIVES which assume that MINERS ARE INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING, so they will always use their hashpower to VOTE FOR THE RULES which INCREASE THEIR BITCOIN PROFITS (and everyone else's :-)
You'd never know it if you only read the misguided posts on the censored forum r\bitcoin - but the simple reason why Bitcoin works is because the vast majority of miners are "intelligently profit-seeking" - voting with their hashpower based on economic incentives to increase their Bitcoin profits (and everyone else's too :-) This is the main aspect of how Satoshi designed Bitcoin - although many, many people who have been brainwashed by Core/Blockstream and r\bitcoin don't actually understand this subtle but important point about Bitcoin. And this brainwashing is the reason why most of the posts on the front page of r\bitcoin are basically garbage nowadays - because they don't understand the main aspect of how Satoshi designed Bitcoin. In particular:
Satoshi did not design Bitcoin to work based on a bunch of non-mining nodes "signaling" their preference for certain rules à la Core / Blockstream's latest crazy desperate proposal called "user (ie, non-miner) activated soft fork" (UASF). (It's always easy to set up Sybil / sockpuppet non-mining nodes.)
Satoshi designed Bitcoin to work based on economic incentives which assume that the vast majority of miners are "intelligently profit-seeking" (or "honest", which was the less-precise terminology he used), so they will always use their hashpower to vote for the rules which increase their Bitcoin profits (and the Bitcoin profits of everyone else :-).
This is how Bitcoin works. And it was such a ground-breaking innovation (solving the long-standing Byzantine Generals Problem, finally making it possible for multiple parties to come to consensus in a decentralized, permissionless, trustless environment) that it even got a special name of its own: "Nakamoto Consensus". Note, in particular, that "Nakamoto Consensus" means that the "rules" don't come from any particular dev team. (How could they? Then we'd be right back at square one again - trying to come to "consensus" on which dev team has the "right" rules.) This is a very subtle point - especially for people who are used to being brainwashed and enslaved under censored, centralized, permissioned, trust-based systems of control. In particular, Nakamoto Consensus means that we will always have control over Bitcoin, and Bitcoin can never be taken over by any one particular group - not even by a couple of economically ignorant C++ coders running some central banker-funded shitty startup (eg, Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us). So, fortunately for all of us, more and more people are remembering the important fact that the rules of Bitcoin are not based on "whatever Greg and Adam happen to decide" - the rules of Bitcoin are based on Nakamoto Consensus or "one CPU, one vote" - ie, the rules are based on a decentralized, persmissionless, trustless network where the vast majority of miners are assumed to be "intelligently profit-seeking", using their hashpower to vote for the rules which increase their Bitcoin profits (and everyone else's Bitcoin profits too :-)... which they're doing right now: http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
The process of mining Bitcoin works as follows: 🖥️ A miner’s computer, called a node, collects and packages individual Bitcoin transactions from the last ten minutes into a block. 🖧 This node competes with other nodes in the network to solve a complicated cryptographic problem to be the first to validate the new block for the blockchain. 📡 The first miner to solve the problem ... Besides, Bitcoin mining can give the outcome in double. First, a computer solves a complicated math problem on the Bitcoin network to generate new Bitcoin. Secondly, Bitcoin miner solves computational math problems. Besides, the Bitcoin payment network is secured and reliable because bitcoin miners verify its transaction information. How Much a Miner Earns . The rewards for bitcoin mining are halved every four years or so. When bitcoin was first mined in 2009, mining one block would earn you 50 BTC. In 2012, this was halved to ... Bitcoin Miner Company offers competitive spreads, with no commissions charged on transactions making it more profitable. When trading with Us you are trading on the price changes of the two best digital coins, and not physically purchasing it. Trading with Maven Managers ensures that you will trade with some of the best Fintech available on the market alongside with MetaTrader 4 platform and ... Bitcoin is like a virtual currency which breaks the monopoly of banks world. It doesn’t have a central government. It works in a blockchain network with some algorithem program. The network is secured by miners, here comes the role of miner who help to check the completion of your bitcoin transactions by solving the BTC blocks. This process ...
Now that the price of Bitcoin has skyrocketed once again, many people will be looking to get involved. One possible way is through Bitcoin mining. There are ... Some Helpful Links: • Buy Parts for a Mining Rig: http://amzn.to/2jSSsCz • Download NiceHash Miner: https://www.nicehash.com/?p=nhmintro • Choose a Wallet: h... If money is only valuable when we believe in it, how much is a BitCoin actually worth? Jonathan explains the virtual currency as well as how to mine it and t... The app is called ETH Miner Robot download it on Google play store today it's free as well as Bitcoin Miner. In this video I try to breakdown the "cryptographic problem" that people reference when they talk about bitcoin mining.