7 Awesome ASIC Bitcoin Miners

White Paper, Miner, Pizza … | "Old Objects" in the Cryptocurrency Museum

White Paper, Miner, Pizza … |
https://preview.redd.it/giu1ssilga151.jpg?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=41510785ccdc0d99544ec74229f62427d1c0ce3e
Museum has played the role of a time recorder. Talking about bitcoin, more than ten years has passed since the creation of it. Although it is uncomparable to the stock market with a hundred years of history, during the ten years, in the different stages of the development of bitcoin and blockchain have continuously poured in geeks, miners, speculators, newbies, leaving keywords such as sudden rich, myth, scam, belief, revolution, etc.
There are also many “old objects” with stories in the “Museum” of the cryptocurrency realm. On Museum Day, let ’s review the stories brought by these “old objects”.
The First Digital Currency White Paper — Bitcoin White Paper
On Oct. 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto released the Bitcoin white paper — A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System in the cryptographic mail group where he belongs, and Bitcoin was born since then.
A white paper is a document that explains the purpose and technology used in cryptocurrency. Usually a cryptocurrency uses the white paper to help people understand what it provides, and it is also an important information channel for investors to understand a project. Therefore, the level of the white paper affects people’s confidence towards the coin.
In a word, in the cryptocurrency and blockchain industry, the value of a white paper is equivalent to that of a standard financing speech. The white paper plays a vital role in this emerging market.
The First Public Bitcoin-Physical Transaction — Pizza
Since Satoshi Nakamoto mined the Bitcoin genesis block on January 3, 2009, Bitcoin has only been spread among the small crowd and has not realized its value.
Not until May 22, 2010, Bitcoin enthusiast “Laszlo Hanyecz” bought a pizza coupon worth $25 with 10,000 bitcoins. This is the first public bitcoin-physical transaction. Bitcoin has its price with 0.3 cents per bitcoin.


This day has also become the famous “Bitcoin Pizza Day” in Bitcoin history. Bitcoin as the imagination of the financial system has more practical significance. The tenth anniversary is coming. How will you commemorate it? Will you buy a pizza?
The First Digital Asset Exchange — Bitcoinmarket.com
After the birth of Bitcoin, in addition to mining, the only way to get Bitcoin in the early days was to conduct transactions on forums or IRC (commonly known as Internet Relay Chat). However, this method involves both long transaction time and great security risk.
In March 2010, the first digital asset exchange — Bitcoinmarket.com launched. However, due to lack of liquidity and transaction depth, it disappeared soon after its establishment, but Bitcoinmarket.com opened the era of the operation of the cryptocurrency realm exchange 1.0.


On June 9, 2011, China’s first Bitcoin exchange — Bitcoin China (BTCChina) launched. Its founder, Yang Linke, translated Bitcoin into Chinese “比特币” for the first time. In 2013, China’s bitcoin trading entered the golden age, and exchanges sprung up. China monopolized more than 90% of the world’s bitcoin transactions. Now, if the top three exchanges Binance, Huobi Global, OKEx are the Exchange 2.0, then the index exchange represented by 58COIN called the 3.0 version, leading the trend.
The First Generation of High-Performance Miner — ASIC Miner
When Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin, the only way to get it is to use computers (including home computers) to mine, mainly relying on the CPU to calculate. However, as the value of digital currencies such as Bitcoin has become higher and higher, mining has become an industry with the competition is getting fiercer, accompanied by increasing difficulty of mining. Therefore, hardware performance competition starts.
In July 2012, the genius Jiang Xinyu (Internet nickname is “Friedcat”) from the junior class of the University of Science and Technology declared at the forum that he could make ASIC miners (chips). As far as mining computing power is concerned, ASICs can be tens of thousands or more higher than the same-generation CPUs and GPUs.
At the beginning of 2013, Zhang Nanqian (Pumpkin Zhang), a suspended doctoral student from the Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, developed the ASIC miner and named it “Avalon”.


In June 2013, the Friedcat’s miner USB was finally released, and it maintained 20% of the computing power of the entire network.
At the end of 2013, Wu Jihan, used the tens of millions yuan earned from Friedcat through investment, worked together with Jenke group, to develop the Antminer S1. Since then, the miner manufacturer Bitmain began to enter the stage of history.
It is no exaggeration to say that Friedcat and Zhang Nangeng have opened the domestic “mining” era.
The Birthplace of China’s Bitcoin — Garage Coffee
It is not only the “old objects” that record history, but also a place that everyone in the cryptocurrency realm aspires to.
Guo Hongcai once said, “Without no The Garage Café, there will be no cryptocurrency realm today. Since it is a very mysterious place that all waves of people from the café joint together to create today’s digital asset industry.

▲ In March 2013, American student Jake Smith successfully purchased a cup of coffee at The Garage Café with 0.131 bitcoins. This move attracted the attention of CCTV, and it conducted an interview.
Indeed, The Garage Café is the world ’s first entrepreneurial-themed coffee shop. It has been legendary since its establishment in 2011. The Garage Cafét is not only the core coordinate on China’s Bitcoin map, but also the birthplace of the Chinese cryptocurrency circle, where digital asset realm tycoons including Guo Hongcai, Zhao Dong, Li Xiaolai, Li Lin have made their ways.
The development of digital currency is only 11 years old. Through these “old objects”, we review the various stories of this wave of technology together, hoping to help you understand the development process of the digital currency field. Meanwhile, I also remind all practitioners to use history as a mirror and forge ahead.
Website: https://www.58ex.com/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/58_coin
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/coin.58COIN
Telegram: https://t.me/official58
Medium: https://medium.com/@58coin_blog/
submitted by 58CoinExchange to u/58CoinExchange [link] [comments]

Canaan's new ASIC is a Pipe Dream, not an Ethereum Threat

So, yesterday Kristy-Leigh Minehan posted on Twitter that a company named Canaan announced an ASIC that is capable of 0.68W/Mhs
That's 2200Mh/s running at 1500w
https://twitter.com/OhGodAGirl/status/1176938519866089473
Here is a list of how it compares to other ASICs and GPUs.
https://blog.miningstore.com/blog/ethereum-mining-hardware-for-2019
She used this tweet to promote the need for ProgPoW
Today, I am attempting to explain that Canaan is not a threat to centralize Ethereum mining with their ASICs.
First, I cannot find any information regarding Canaan announcing an Ethereum ASIC other than Kristy's twitter post
There is only one article written about it and it uses Kristy's twitter post as their source.
https://cryptoslate.com/ethereum-asic-dominates-gpu-performance/
Nothing on Canaan's website talks about this miner
Nor does Canaan's twitter account mention anything like this.
If we look closely at Kristy's twitter picture, you can see the Canaan Ethereum miner will be called the V10.
I cannot find any info anywhere on this miner.
You would think that if Canaan is unveiling a new product, they would be talking about it more to spread awareness and raise hype, but they aren't.
I mean, they made a big to-do when they announced the A10 bitcoin miner in March, so why are they posting nothing about the V10 ethereum miner.
https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160
And a google search will show many many more articles written about the bitcoin A10 after its announcement.
I'm not saying the announcement isn't real, just that I find it odd that the company isn't talking about it themselves.
Canaan did respond to a tweet from “cryptoState”, the writer's of the article based on Kristy's tweet.
Canaan replied that the v10 is not an official worldwide Canaan product.
https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1177088253431668736
and further in the cryptostate article, Canaan says “It is a little hard to explain, but those are not products designed and built by Canaan engineering. They are products sold by the domestic sales team and are not an official worldwide Canaan product,”
I do not know what that means exactly. If it means it's not an official Canaan product, or that it won't be available worldwide, or what.
But this is the first clue to me that it isn't anything to worry about.
If it's not an official Canaan product, then it doesn't seem like it will have support from Canaan to bring it to market.
It won't be marketed by Canaan, use it's supply chain, it's business resources and contacts, use it's support system, or be built by Canaan.
Next, yes 0.68W/Mhs is more efficient than GPUs, but that isn't all that matters when miners choose the devices to use.
What matters also is how much the machine costs.
If the V10 is price too high, then it's not something to worry about.
Without a price, Kristy can't claim in good faith that the V10 is something Ethereum needs to worry about and a reason ProgPoW needs to be adopted.
I'm not sure how to price the thing, myself, but at current ETH prices and hashrate, it would make $2200 in 4 months.
I think generally ASIC mfgs price their machines to break even in 3-4 months.
So that would be the machine will cost around $2200.
BUT, that's only if ONE machine is running on the network.
The more machines on the network, the less profitable they are.
If we look at the Avalon A1066, it's november batch costs $1390, and has a break-even time of 464 months at current bitcoin prices.
So it seems to me the Canaan V10 will be quite a bit more expensive than $2200.
Which doesn't make it feasible for that many people to buy.
Next, there was no product on display at the New Era Mining Summit, where this product was announced.
Only some graphics of numbers they claim.
Nor can I find any technical documentation talking about how they plan to achieve the advertised hashrate
I tweeted Kristy telling her that this seems, at best, like just an idea to me, to help them raise money and that it takes more than an idea to bring an ASIC to market.
https://twitter.com/AltcoinXP/status/1177290387205054464
Kristy then blocked me on Twitter and told me to stop spreading misinformation.
https://imgur.com/lWEAWbd
So, now let's talk about the article I replied to her with, claiming that Canaan doesn't have enough funding for this.
Granted, I said this without doing as much research as I could've, but let's see if what I said holds true.
Here is the article I linked in the tweet.
https://www.coindesk.com/avalon-bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-is-plotting-another-ipo-attempt
Notice the date this article was published. March 27th 2019.
Notice that Avalon announce their Bitcoin A10 miner the next day.
https://twitter.com/canaanio/status/1111513725733724160
Perhaps to help attract funding from new investors, which the Coindesk article says they haven't been able to bring on any new investors in a long time.
I'm not going to cite the whole article here, read it for yourself, but it generally explains that Canaan is unable to attract new funding.
Also, Xianfu Lui, a 17.2% shareholder in Canaan left the company in February, so I doubt he invested money into Canaan.
https://www.coindesk.com/co-founder-quits-avalon-mining-chip-maker-canaan-over-differences
Here are some more Coindesk articles speaking about Canaan trying to raise money.
https://www.coindesk.com/huobi-plans-backdoor-ipo-attempt-in-hong-kong-document-suggests
“After mining giant Bitmain’s IPO attempt in Hong Kong was allowed to expire, apparently due to reluctance from HKEX, it’s reportedly now planning to list in the U.S. Another miner manufacturer, Canaan Creative, is also reported to have already confidentially filed in the U.S. after a failed HKEX attempt. “
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-maker-canaan-confidentially-files-for-ipo-in-us-report
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-miner-canaans-ipo-likely-delayed-after-hong-kong-filing-expires
“The Reuters report, citing anonymous sources, further said the HKEX and financial regulators in Hong Kong have raised questions over Canaan’s business model, given the volatile nature of cryptocurrencies. As such, the news agency said the IPO might not go ahead this year, since there have been no updates from a listing hearing with the HKEX. “
So seems to be Caanan is having a hard time finding funding for their endeavors. Pretty much every single article on Coindesk about them is about them trying to get funding and failing at it.
So do they have enough money to bring the V10 to market AND bring enough V10s to be a problem?
They would need to produce 45,000 units to get 50% of the Ethereum mining power.
Current network is 197TH/s https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
Currently Bitmain is estimated to have produced less than 20,000 units since the Antminer E3's announcement in April 2018.
https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/d8fuvj/an_argument_against_progpow_a_day_part_1/f1axc2c/
https://www.coindesk.com/bitmain-confirms-release-first-ever-ethereum-asic-miners
Bitmain being a much larger company than Canaan, it seems unlikely they will produce 45,000 units quick enough to become a problem.
Anyway,
For those of you that don't know, Canaan manages the Avalon bitcoin ASICs and have done so since 2014. Canaan is fulling in charge of Avalon.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Avalon
Maybe I should've said that sooner, I don't know. I'm just typing as I come up with stuff.
But we can look at Avalon's bitcoin past to determine what the future ethereum miner supply might look like. Keep in mind though, this was also during a time when they were well-funded.
I'm not sure what their bank account looks like now, but they have been in the red every year since their existance, so I have to assume they have less money now than when they were releasing bitcoin miners
Avalon announce the A10 March 2019, and started shipping pre-orders in October 2019.
If the V10 follows suit, we won't see a V10 in the hands of miners until April 2020
https://www.coindesk.com/demand-for-new-bitcoin-miners-is-again-outstripping-supply
Ok, I'm done. That's all I put together and why I don't believe the Canaan ASIC that was announced is a concern warranting the immediate adoption of ProgPoW
Thanks for reading.
submitted by Anthony-AltcoinXP to ethereum [link] [comments]

Transcript of discussion between an ASIC designer and several proof-of-work designers from #monero-pow channel on Freenode this morning

[08:07:01] lukminer contains precompiled cn/r math sequences for some blocks: https://lukminer.org/2019/03/09/oh-kay-v4r-here-we-come/
[08:07:11] try that with RandomX :P
[08:09:00] tevador: are you ready for some RandomX feedback? it looks like the CNv4 is slowly stabilizing, hashrate comes down...
[08:09:07] how does it even make sense to precompile it?
[08:09:14] mine 1% faster for 2 minutes?
[08:09:35] naturally we think the entire asic-resistance strategy is doomed to fail :) but that's a high-level thing, who knows. people may think it's great.
[08:09:49] about RandomX: looks like the cache size was chosen to make it GPU-hard
[08:09:56] looking forward to more docs
[08:11:38] after initial skimming, I would think it's possible to make a 10x asic for RandomX. But at least for us, we will only make an ASIC if there is not a total ASIC hostility there in the first place. That's better for the secret miners then.
[08:13:12] What I propose is this: we are working on an Ethash ASIC right now, and once we have that working, we would invite tevador or whoever wants to come to HK/Shenzhen and we walk you guys through how we would make a RandomX ASIC. You can then process this input in any way you like. Something like that.
[08:13:49] unless asics (or other accelerators) re-emerge on XMR faster than expected, it looks like there is a little bit of time before RandomX rollout
[08:14:22] 10x in what measure? $/hash or watt/hash?
[08:14:46] watt/hash
[08:15:19] so you can make 10 times more efficient double precisio FPU?
[08:16:02] like I said let's try to be productive. You are having me here, let's work together!
[08:16:15] continue with RandomX, publish more docs. that's always helpful.
[08:16:37] I'm trying to understand how it's possible at all. Why AMD/Intel are so inefficient at running FP calculations?
[08:18:05] midipoet ([email protected]/web/irccloud.com/x-vszshqqxwybvtsjm) has joined #monero-pow
[08:18:17] hardware development works the other way round. We start with 1) math then 2) optimization priority 3) hw/sw boundary 4) IP selection 5) physical implementation
[08:22:32] This still doesn't explain at which point you get 10x
[08:23:07] Weren't you the ones claiming "We can accelerate ProgPoW by a factor of 3x to 8x." ? I find it hard to believe too.
[08:30:20] sure
[08:30:26] so my idea: first we finish our current chip
[08:30:35] from simulation to silicon :)
[08:30:40] we love this stuff... we do it anyway
[08:30:59] now we have a communication channel, and we don't call each other names immediately anymore: big progress!
[08:31:06] you know, we russians have a saying "it was smooth on paper, but they forgot about ravines"
[08:31:12] So I need a bit more details
[08:31:16] ha ha. good!
[08:31:31] that's why I want to avoid to just make claims
[08:31:34] let's work
[08:31:40] RandomX comes in Sep/Oct, right?
[08:31:45] Maybe
[08:32:20] We need to audit it first
[08:32:31] ok
[08:32:59] we don't make chips to prove sw devs that their assumptions about hardware are wrong. especially not if these guys then promptly hardfork and move to the next wrong assumption :)
[08:33:10] from the outside, this only means that hw & sw are devaluing each other
[08:33:24] neither of us should do this
[08:33:47] we are making chips that can hopefully accelerate more crypto ops in the future
[08:33:52] signing, verifying, proving, etc.
[08:34:02] PoW is just a feature like others
[08:34:18] sech1: is it easy for you to come to Hong Kong? (visa-wise)
[08:34:20] or difficult?
[08:34:33] or are you there sometimes?
[08:34:41] It's kind of far away
[08:35:13] we are looking forward to more RandomX docs. that's the first step.
[08:35:31] I want to avoid that we have some meme "Linzhi says they can accelerate XYZ by factor x" .... "ha ha ha"
[08:35:37] right? we don't want that :)
[08:35:39] doc is almost finished
[08:35:40] What docs do you need? It's described pretty good
[08:35:41] so I better say nothing now
[08:35:50] we focus on our Ethash chip
[08:36:05] then based on that, we are happy to walk interested people through the design and what else it can do
[08:36:22] that's a better approach from my view than making claims that are laughed away (rightfully so, because no silicon...)
[08:36:37] ethash ASIC is basically a glorified memory controller
[08:36:39] sech1: tevador said something more is coming (he just did it again)
[08:37:03] yes, some parts of RandomX are not described well
[08:37:10] like dataset access logic
[08:37:37] RandomX looks like progpow for CPU
[08:37:54] yes
[08:38:03] it is designed to reflect CPU
[08:38:34] so any ASIC for it = CPU in essence
[08:39:04] of course there are still some things in regular CPU that can be thrown away for RandomX
[08:40:20] uncore parts are not used, but those will use very little power
[08:40:37] except for memory controller
[08:41:09] I'm just surprised sometimes, ok? let me ask: have you designed or taped out an asic before? isn't it risky to make assumptions about things that are largely unknown?
[08:41:23] I would worry
[08:41:31] that I get something wrong...
[08:41:44] but I also worry like crazy that CNv4 will blow up, where you guys seem to be relaxed
[08:42:06] I didn't want to bring up anything RandomX because CNv4 is such a nailbiter... :)
[08:42:15] how do you guys know you don't have asics in a week or two?
[08:42:38] we don't have experience with ASIC design, but RandomX is simply designed to exactly fit CPU capabilities, which is the best you can do anyways
[08:43:09] similar as ProgPoW did with GPUs
[08:43:14] some people say they want to do asic-resistance only until the vast majority of coins has been issued
[08:43:21] that's at least reasonable
[08:43:43] yeah but progpow totally will not work as advertised :)
[08:44:08] yeah, I've seen that comment about progpow a few times already
[08:44:11] which is no surprise if you know it's just a random sales story to sell a few more GPUs
[08:44:13] RandomX is not permanent, we are expecting to switch to ASIC friendly in a few years if possible
[08:44:18] yes
[08:44:21] that makes sense
[08:44:40] linzhi-sonia: how so? will it break or will it be asic-able with decent performance gains?
[08:44:41] are you happy with CNv4 so far?
[08:45:10] ah, long story. progpow is a masterpiece of deception, let's not get into it here.
[08:45:21] if you know chip marketing it makes more sense
[08:45:24] linzhi-sonia: So far? lol! a bit early to tell, don't you think?
[08:45:35] the diff is coming down
[08:45:41] first few hours looked scary
[08:45:43] I remain skeptical: I only see ASICs being reasonable if they are already as ubiquitous as smartphones
[08:45:46] yes, so far so good
[08:46:01] we kbew the diff would not come down ubtil affter block 75
[08:46:10] yes
[08:46:22] but first few hours it looks like only 5% hashrate left
[08:46:27] looked
[08:46:29] now it's better
[08:46:51] the next worry is: when will "unexplainable" hashrate come back?
[08:47:00] you hope 2-3 months? more?
[08:47:05] so give it another couple of days. will probably overshoot to the downside, and then rise a bit as miners get updated and return
[08:47:22] 3 months minimum turnaround, yes
[08:47:28] nah
[08:47:36] don't underestimate asicmakers :)
[08:47:54] you guys don't get #1 priority on chip fabs
[08:47:56] 3 months = 90 days. do you know what is happening in those 90 days exactly? I'm pretty sure you don't. same thing as before.
[08:48:13] we don't do any secret chips btw
[08:48:21] 3 months assumes they had a complete design ready to go, and added the last minute change in 1 day
[08:48:24] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:48:27] innosilicon?
[08:48:34] hyc: no no, and no. :)
[08:48:44] hyc: have you designed or taped out a chip before?
[08:48:51] yes, many years ago
[08:49:10] then you should know that 90 days is not a fixed number
[08:49:35] sure, but like I said, other makers have greater demand
[08:49:35] especially not if you can prepare, if you just have to modify something, or you have more programmability in the chip than some people assume
[08:50:07] we are chipmakers, we would never dare to do what you guys are doing with CNv4 :) but maybe that just means you are cooler!
[08:50:07] and yes, programmability makes some aspect of turnaround easier
[08:50:10] all fine
[08:50:10] I hope it works!
[08:50:28] do you know who is behind the hashrate that is now bricked?
[08:50:29] inno?
[08:50:41] we suspect so, but have no evidence
[08:50:44] maybe we can try to find them, but we cannot spend too much time on this
[08:50:53] it's probably not so much of a secret
[08:51:01] why should it be, right?
[08:51:10] devs want this cat-and-mouse game? devs get it...
[08:51:35] there was one leak saying it's innosilicon
[08:51:36] so you think 3 months, ok
[08:51:43] inno is cool
[08:51:46] good team
[08:51:49] IP design house
[08:51:54] in Wuhan
[08:52:06] they send their people to conferences with fake biz cards :)
[08:52:19] pretending to be other companies?
[08:52:26] sure
[08:52:28] ha ha
[08:52:39] so when we see them, we look at whatever card they carry and laugh :)
[08:52:52] they are perfectly suited for secret mining games
[08:52:59] they made at most $6 million in 2 months of mining, so I wonder if it was worth it
[08:53:10] yeah. no way to know
[08:53:15] but it's good that you calculate!
[08:53:24] this is all about cost/benefit
[08:53:25] then you also understand - imagine the value of XMR goes up 5x, 10x
[08:53:34] that whole "asic resistance" thing will come down like a house of cards
[08:53:41] I would imagine they sell immediately
[08:53:53] the investor may fully understand the risk
[08:53:57] the buyer
[08:54:13] it's not healthy, but that's another discussion
[08:54:23] so mid-June
[08:54:27] let's see
[08:54:49] I would be susprised if CNv4 ASICs show up at all
[08:54:56] surprised*
[08:54:56] why?
[08:55:05] is only an economic question
[08:55:12] yeah should be interesting. FPGAs will be near their limits as well
[08:55:16] unless XMR goes up a lot
[08:55:19] no, not *only*. it's also a technology question
[08:55:44] you believe CNv4 is "asic resistant"? which feature?
[08:55:53] it's not
[08:55:59] cnv4 = Rabdomx ?
[08:56:03] no
[08:56:07] cnv4=cryptinight/r
[08:56:11] ah
[08:56:18] CNv4 is the one we have now, I think
[08:56:21] since yesterday
[08:56:30] it's plenty enough resistant for current XMR price
[08:56:45] that may be, yes!
[08:56:55] I look at daily payouts. XMR = ca. 100k USD / day
[08:57:03] it can hold until October, but it's not asic resistant
[08:57:23] well, last 24h only 22,442 USD :)
[08:57:32] I think 80 h/s per watt ASICs are possible for CNv4
[08:57:38] linzhi-sonia where do you produce your chips? TSMC?
[08:57:44] I'm cruious how you would expect to build a randomX ASIC that outperforms ARM cores for efficiency, or Intel cores for raw speed
[08:57:48] curious
[08:58:01] yes, tsmc
[08:58:21] Our team did the world's first bitcoin asic, Avalon
[08:58:25] and upcoming 2nd gen Ryzens (64-core EPYC) will be a blast at RandomX
[08:58:28] designed and manufactured
[08:58:53] still being marketed?
[08:59:03] linzhi-sonia: do you understand what xmr wants to achieve, community-wise?
[08:59:14] Avalon? as part of Canaan Creative, yes I think so.
[08:59:25] there's not much interesting oing on in SHA256
[08:59:29] Inge-: I would think so, but please speak
[08:59:32] hyc: yes
[09:00:28] linzhi-sonia: i am curious to hear your thoughts. I am fairly new to this space myself...
[09:00:51] oh
[09:00:56] we are grandpas, and grandmas
[09:01:36] yet I have no problem understanding why ASICS are currently reviled.
[09:01:48] xmr's main differentiators to, let's say btc, are anonymity and fungibility
[09:01:58] I find the client terribly slow btw
[09:02:21] and I think the asic-forking since last may is wrong, doesn't create value and doesn't help with the project objectives
[09:02:25] which "the client" ?
[09:02:52] Monero GUI client maybe
[09:03:12] MacOS, yes
[09:03:28] What exactly is slow?
[09:03:30] linzhi-sonia: I run my own node, and use the CLI and Monerujo. Have not had issues.
[09:03:49] staying in sync
[09:03:49] linzhi-sonia: decentralization is also a key principle
[09:03:56] one that Bitcoin has failed to maintain
[09:04:39] hmm
[09:05:00] looks fairly decentralized to me. decentralization is the result of 3 goals imo: resilient, trustless, permissionless
[09:05:28] don't ask a hardware maker about physical decentralization. that's too ideological. we focus on logical decentralization.
[09:06:11] physical decentralization is important. with bulk of bitnoin mining centered on Chinese hydroelectric dams
[09:06:19] have you thought about including block data in the PoW?
[09:06:41] yes, of course.
[09:07:39] is that already in an algo?
[09:08:10] hyc: about "centered on chinese hydro" - what is your source? the best paper I know is this: https://coinshares.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Mining-Whitepaper-Final.pdf
[09:09:01] linzhi-sonia: do you mine on your ASICs before you sell them?
[09:09:13] besides testing of course
[09:09:45] that paper puts Chinese btc miners at 60% max
[09:10:05] tevador: I think everybody learned that that is not healthy long-term!
[09:10:16] because it gives the chipmaker a cost advantage over its own customers
[09:10:33] and cost advantage leads to centralization (physical and logical)
[09:10:51] you guys should know who finances progpow and why :)
[09:11:05] but let's not get into this, ha ha. want to keep the channel civilized. right OhGodAGirl ? :)
[09:11:34] tevador: so the answer is no! 100% and definitely no
[09:11:54] that "self-mining" disease was one of the problems we have now with asics, and their bad reputation (rightfully so)
[09:13:08] I plan to write a nice short 2-page paper or so on our chip design process. maybe it's interesting to some people here.
[09:13:15] basically the 5 steps I mentioned before, from math to physical
[09:13:32] linzhi-sonia: the paper you linked puts 48% of bitcoin mining in Sichuan. the total in China is much more than 60%
[09:13:38] need to run it by a few people to fix bugs, will post it here when published
[09:14:06] hyc: ok! I am just sharing the "best" document I know today. it definitely may be wrong and there may be a better one now.
[09:14:18] hyc: if you see some reports, please share
[09:14:51] hey I am really curious about this: where is a PoW algo that puts block data into the PoW?
[09:15:02] the previous paper I read is from here http://hackingdistributed.com/2018/01/15/decentralization-bitcoin-ethereum/
[09:15:38] hyc: you said that already exists? (block data in PoW)
[09:15:45] it would make verification harder
[09:15:49] linzhi-sonia: https://the-eye.eu/public/Books/campdivision.com/PDF/Computers%20General/Privacy/bitcoin/meh/hashimoto.pdf
[09:15:51] but for chips it would be interesting
[09:15:52] we discussed the possibility about a year ago https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/8bshrx/what_we_need_to_know_about_proof_of_work_pow/
[09:16:05] oh good links! thanks! need to read...
[09:16:06] I think that paper by dryja was original
[09:17:53] since we have a nice flow - second question I'm very curious about: has anyone thought about in-protocol rewards for other functions?
[09:18:55] we've discussed micropayments for wallets to use remote nodes
[09:18:55] you know there is a lot of work in other coins about STARK provers, zero-knowledge, etc. many of those things very compute intense, or need to be outsourced to a service (zether). For chipmakers, in-protocol rewards create an economic incentive to accelerate those things.
[09:19:50] whenever there is an in-protocol reward, you may get the power of ASICs doing something you actually want to happen
[09:19:52] it would be nice if there was some economic reward for running a fullnode, but no one has come up with much more than that afaik
[09:19:54] instead of fighting them off
[09:20:29] you need to use asics, not fight them. that's an obvious thing to say for an asicmaker...
[09:20:41] in-protocol rewards can be very powerful
[09:20:50] like I said before - unless the ASICs are so useful they're embedded in every smartphone, I dont see them being a positive for decentralization
[09:21:17] if they're a separate product, the average consumer is not going to buy them
[09:21:20] now I was talking about speedup of verifying, signing, proving, etc.
[09:21:23] they won't even know what they are
[09:22:07] if anybody wants to talk about or design in-protocol rewards, please come talk to us
[09:22:08] the average consumer also doesn't use general purpose hardware to secure blockchains either
[09:22:14] not just for PoW, in fact *NOT* for PoW
[09:22:32] it requires sw/hw co-design
[09:23:10] we are in long-term discussions/collaboration over this with Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash. just talk right now.
[09:23:16] this was recently published though suggesting more uptake though I guess https://btcmanager.com/college-students-are-the-second-biggest-miners-of-cryptocurrency/
[09:23:29] I find it pretty hard to believe their numbers
[09:24:03] well
[09:24:09] sorry, original article: https://www.pcmag.com/news/366952/college-kids-are-using-campus-electricity-to-mine-crypto
[09:24:11] just talk, no? rumors
[09:24:18] college students are already more educated than the average consumer
[09:24:29] we are not seeing many such customers anymore
[09:24:30] it's data from cisco monitoring network traffic
[09:24:33] and they're always looking for free money
[09:24:48] of course anyone with "free" electricity is inclined to do it
[09:24:57] but look at the rates, cannot make much money
[09:26:06] Ethereum is a bloated collection of bugs wrapped in a UI. I suppose they need all the help they can get
[09:26:29] Bitcoin Cash ... just another get rich quick scheme
[09:26:38] hmm :)
[09:26:51] I'll give it back to you, ok? ha ha. arrogance comes before the fall...
[09:27:17] maye we should have a little fun with CNv4 mining :)
[09:27:25] ;)
[09:27:38] come on. anyone who has watched their track record... $75M lost in ETH at DAO hack
[09:27:50] every smart contract that comes along is just waiting for another hack
[09:27:58] I just wanted to throw out the "in-protocol reward" thing, maybe someone sees the idea and wants to cowork. maybe not. maybe it's a stupid idea.
[09:29:18] linzhi-sonia: any thoughts on CN-GPU?
[09:29:55] CN-GPU has one positive aspect - it wastes chip area to implement all 18 hash algorithms
[09:30:19] you will always hear roughly the same feedback from me:
[09:30:52] "This algorithm very different, it heavy use floating point operations to hurt FPGAs and general purpose CPUs"
[09:30:56] the problem is, if it's profitable for people to buy ASIC miners and mine, it's always more profitable for the manufacturer to not sell and mine themselves
[09:31:02] "hurt"
[09:31:07] what is the point of this?
[09:31:15] it totally doesn't work
[09:31:24] you are hurting noone, just demonstrating lack of ability to think
[09:31:41] what is better: algo designed for chip, or chip designed for algo?
[09:31:43] fireice does it on daily basis, CN-GPU is a joke
[09:31:53] tevador: that's not really true, especially in a market with such large price fluctuations as cryptocurrency
[09:32:12] it's far less risky to sell miners than mine with them and pray that price doesn't crash for next six months
[09:32:14] I think it's great that crypto has a nice group of asicmakers now, hw & sw will cowork well
[09:32:36] jwinterm yes, that's why they premine them and sell after
[09:32:41] PoW is about being thermodynamically and cryptographically provable
[09:32:45] premining with them is taking on that risk
[09:32:49] not "fork when we think there are asics"
[09:32:51] business is about risk minimization
[09:32:54] that's just fear-driven
[09:33:05] Inge-: that's roughly the feedback
[09:33:24] I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I think it's not so simple as saying "it always happens"
[09:34:00] jwinterm: it has certainly happened on BTC. and also on XMR.
[09:34:19] ironically, please think about it: these kinds of algos indeed prove the limits of the chips they were designed for. but they don't prove that you cannot implement the same algo differently! cannot!
[09:34:26] Risk minimization is not starting a business at all.
[09:34:34] proof-of-gpu-limit. proof-of-cpu-limit.
[09:34:37] imagine you have a money printing machine, would you sell it?
[09:34:39] proves nothing for an ASIC :)
[09:35:05] linzhi-sonia: thanks. I dont think anyone believes you can't make a more efficient cn-gpu asic than a gpu - but that it would not be orders of magnitude faster...
[09:35:24] ok
[09:35:44] like I say. these algos are, that's really ironic, designed to prove the limitatios of a particular chip in mind of the designer
[09:35:50] exactly the wrong way round :)
[09:36:16] like the cache size in RandomX :)
[09:36:18] beautiful
[09:36:29] someone looked at GPU designs
[09:37:31] linzhi-sonia can you elaborate? Cache size in RandomX was selected to fit CPU cache
[09:37:52] yes
[09:38:03] too large for GPU
[09:38:11] as I said, we are designing the algorithm to exactly fit CPU capabilities, I do not claim an ASIC cannot be more efficient
[09:38:16] ok!
[09:38:29] when will you do the audit?
[09:38:35] will the results be published in a document or so?
[09:38:37] I claim that single-chip ASIC is not viable, though
[09:39:06] you guys are brave, noone disputes that. 3 anti-asic hardforks now!
[09:39:18] 4th one coming
[09:39:31] 3 forks were done not only for this
[09:39:38] they had scheduled updates in the first place
[09:48:10] Monero is the #1 anti-asic fighter
[09:48:25] Monero is #1 for a lot of reasons ;)
[09:48:40] It's the coin with the most hycs.
[09:48:55] mooooo
[09:59:06] sneaky integer overflow, bug squished
[10:38:00] p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has joined #monero-pow
[11:10:53] The convo here is wild
[11:12:29] it's like geo-politics at the intersection of software and hardware manufacturing for thermoeconomic value.
[11:13:05] ..and on a Sunday.
[11:15:43] midipoet: hw and sw should work together and stop silly games to devalue each other. to outsiders this is totally not attractive.
[11:16:07] I appreciate the positive energy here to try to listen, learn, understand.
[11:16:10] that's a start
[11:16:48] <-- p0nziph0ne ([email protected]/vpn/privateinternetaccess/p0nziph0ne) has quit (Quit: Leaving)
[11:16:54] we won't do silly mining against xmr "community" wishes, but not because we couldn'd do it, but because it's the wrong direction in the long run, for both sides
[11:18:57] linzhi-sonia: I agree to some extent. Though, in reality, there will always be divergence between social worlds. Not every body has the same vision of the future. Reaching societal consensus on reality tomorrow is not always easy
[11:20:25] absolutely. especially at a time when there is so much profit to be made from divisiveness.
[11:20:37] someone will want to make that profit, for sure
[11:24:32] Yes. Money distorts.
[11:24:47] Or wealth...one of the two
[11:26:35] Too much physical money will distort rays of light passing close to it indeed.
submitted by jwinterm to Monero [link] [comments]

The total computing power now dedicated to securing the bitcoin blockchain has set yet another record.

According to data from mining services operator BTC.com, the average bitcoin mining hash rate over the last two weeks has reached 71.43 quintillion hashes per second (EH/s), up from 64.49EH/s on July 23. The threshold was breached as bitcoin adjusted its mining difficulty at block height 586,672 on Monday 2:52 UTC – that is a 6.94EH/s, or 10.78 percent jump since mid July.
Bitcoin mining difficulty is a measure of how hard it is to compete for mining rewards on bitcoin. Just how difficult the bitcoin software makes it to generate new blocks adjusts every 2,016 blocks – approximately every 14 days – to ensure the block production time remains about 10 minutes at the next cycle.
Assume this additional 6.9EH/s (or 6.9 million tera hashes per second, TH/s) computing power has all come from powerful ASIC miners, such as Bitmain’s AntMiner S17 or MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S, both of which boast a mining rate of around 55TH/s and recently hit the market.
That means more than 100,000 top-of-line ASIC miners could have been switched on within the past two weeks. Further, given these products have been sold for at least $2,000 each, this equates to some $200 million in revenue pocketed for major miner makers.
The continued interest in bitcoin mining comes at a time when the cryptocurrency’s price appears to be en route to challenging all-time highs, however distantly, and amid the arrival of the rainy season in China, which leads to cheaper hydropower electricity costs in the country’s southwest provinces – a region that is reported to account for 50 percent of the global mining activity,
Miners in China estimated earlier this year that bitcoin’s hash rate in the summer would break the level of 70EH/s. To be clear, at several single points of time, bitcoin’s hash rate had already crossed that level in June and even reached 80EH/s around Aug. 1.
However, today marks the first time that the two-week average computing power has been able to remain above the 70EH/s threshold. As such, bitcoin’s mining difficulty has also set a new record of nearly 10 trillion.

Market change

Amidst this uptick in mining interest, there have been notable changes in the mining market, where top manufacturers are racing to produce more powerful equipment.
For instance, in Bitmain’s 2018 initial public offering prospectus, the Beijing-based mining giant claimed it had a 70 percent market dominance. Now, it may be facing serious competition from rival players that some believe are capable of shipping more top-of-line products with better profitability.
Michael Zhong, a former mining analyst who now operates mining farms at a startup called Force Mine, told CoinDesk that based on his experience, the production capacity ranking among major Chinese miner makers for their flagship products have changed over the years.
Zhong explained that from 2017 to 2018, Bitmain had topped the list with its AntMiner S9 series miners, followed by Canaan’s Avalon 8 series machines. InnoSilicon, Ebang and former Bitmain design director’s MicroBT were all in the third position at the time.
But from January to June this year, the delivery capacity ranking has reshuffled, with now MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20 series at the top, followed by Bitmain’s S17 series miners and then InnoSilicon, Canaan, and Ebang, Zhong added.
According to F2pool’s miner profit tracker, Bitmain’s flagship AntMiner S17 Pro ranks third in terms of mining profitability, following BitFury’s Tardis and MicroBT’s WhatsMiner M20S. The cost for WhatsMiner M20S is around $3,000, while that of AntMiner S17 Pro is around $4,000 each, based on the information advertised on the two firms’ websites.
Although orders for these flagship machines have queued up until November and December this year, MicroBT’s founder Zuoxing Yang told CoinDesk previously that the bottleneck of production capacity is the availability of chips from suppliers.
For example, MicroBT uses 10-nm chips for its M20 series, which are relatively more affordable with a higher level of availability compared to more advanced 7-nm chips used by Bitmain for its AntMiner S17 series equipment.
While Bitmain has always been relying on chips supplied by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), MicroBT has switched from TSMC to Samsung earlier this year for its flagship products.
Both TSMC and Samsung have estimated in their most recent Q2 earnings calls that the demand for cryptocurrency mining chips will come back in the third and the fourth quarter this year.
Operating miners image courtesy to Hashage
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-computing-power-sets-new-record-as-over-100k-miners-go-online?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=coindesk&utm_term=&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Organic%20
submitted by Muxa84 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Is a great time now miners to turn to UASF and rid off Jihan cartel forever.

Is a great time now miners to turn to UASF and rid off Jihan cartel forever. submitted by chek2fire to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Have you been up to date with major Crypto news from this week?

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

My miner!

My miner! submitted by zeusa1mighty to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Powerful New Ethereum Miner Reaches Final Stage Before Mass Production

Powerful New Ethereum Miner Reaches Final Stage Before Mass Production

https://preview.redd.it/ao78avnae4m31.png?width=860&format=png&auto=webp&s=11f62e6227dc7d93e9a6c2c3874782fcd4892b59
News by Coindesk: Wolfie Zhao
After a nine-month delay and $3.8 million of investment, an upstart manufacturer is ready to produce its first batch of powerful new machines for mining cryptocurrencies ethereum and ethereum classic.
Linzhi, based in Shenzen, China, said Wednesday it had ordered 37 wafers from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the main parts that will allow it to build about 200 application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) miners.
These sample units will test whether the machines can mine as efficiently as they are designed to do using ethash, the proof-of-work algorithm used on ethereum and ethereum classic.
The testing units, if successful, would mark a major step toward mass production as Linzhi sets out to compete with makers of general-purpose computing chips, such as NIVIDA, as well as mining gear specialists Bitmain and InnoSilicon, which both make ASIC miners for the ethash algorithm.
Roughly five million ether (ETH), the native cryptocurrency on the ethereum network, is being mined every year, which, at its current price, is worth more than $800 million. Even for ethereum classic, which maintains the original ethereum ledger from before a hard fork in 2016, about nine million native ETC gets mined every year, worth more than $60 million.

Powerful chips

Linzhi was founded in February 2018 by Chen Min, a former chip design head at Canaan Creative, maker of the Avalon bitcoin miner. Chen told CoinDesk the new company was completely self-funded with about $4 million as starting capital.
It announced the plan to produce ethash ASIC miners in September 2018 with an ambition to beat the efficiency of most existing equipment. Chen’s target specification for Linzhi’s ethash ASIC miner is set at 1400 mega hashes per second (MH/s) with an electricity consumption level of one kilowatt-hour.
To put those figures in perspective, NVIDIA’s GTX TitanV 8 card is now one of the most profitable piece of equipment on the ethash algorithm, able to compute 656 MH/s at an energy consumption level of 2.1 kWh, according to mining pool f2pool’s miner profitability index,
With ETH’s current price ($180) and network difficulty, as well as an electricity cost of $0.04 per kWh, each GTX TitanV 8 would bring home a daily profit of $7.35. Similarly, if one uses the same GTX TitanV 8 card to mine ETC, which has both a lower price and a lower mining difficulty than ETH, the daily profit would still be around $6.70.
The total computing power racing on ethereum and ethereum classic to compete for block rewards and to secure the two networks is around 160 and 13 tera hashes per second (TH/s), respectively.

Plan A

Since the announcement of its plan, Linzhi has spent almost all of its initial capital on research and development of the chip design, the operations of its dozen-person team, and the order of the first batch of wafers, to bet the sample testing units will deliver the intended mining power.
Linzhi previously said it was aiming to order the first batch of wafers around December in order to have samples ready in April and mass production in June.
Speaking of the delay, the company said:
“We underestimated the complexity of the chip and how long it would take to grow the team and make the company functional. We are cautiously optimistic that we can just move forward the rest of the schedule, which would mean 12/2019 for sample machines and 02/2020 for mass production.”
One possible risk for the business is that the ethereum community has previously voted to activate the so-called ProgPow algorithm in order to remove the edge maintained by large miners that can afford expensive, specialized chips, although the timing for that switch is not yet decided. (Eventually, ethereum developers want to transition from proof-of-work to proof-of-stake, which would eliminate mining altogether.)
When asked if Linzhi has any Plan B if the switch happens, Chen said the company is, in fact, more active in the ETC community, adding:
“Our plan A is to focus on ETC mining. So if ETH will still be an option, that’s something good to have. In the ethereum community, the ProgPow plan still has some uncertainty. For the time being, we don’t see it as a market that we will obtain, so I don’t really care that much.”

Reverse discount

In an arguably counterintuitive move, Chen said the company plans to adopt what it calls a “reverse discount” strategy when it starts to take in pre-orders if sample units prove to be successful. That would mean the more you buy, the more you are likely going to pay.
The reason is to discourage any single entity from buying too many machines and thus concentrating power over the network.
While Linzhi has not yet decided on final pricing for each unit to be sold at pre-orders, it says the goal is to achieve a payback period of four months for individual miners with a relatively small number of orders.
“This is our efforts and contribution to the idea of decentralization,” Chen said, concluding:
“Our sales will go to developers and community first, with a focus on geographical distribution, and potentially with a malus [reverse discount] for large orders. This means that small orders by individuals would be priced to hit the 4 month [return of investment] and larger orders would pay more.”
Mining equipment image via CoinDesk archive
submitted by GTE_IO to u/GTE_IO [link] [comments]

Latest Shipment of Avalon ASICs Could Increase Network Hashrate By 500%

Latest Shipment of Avalon ASICs Could Increase Network Hashrate By 500% submitted by eltonjock to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

10,000's of Avalon ASICs Set to Rival ASICMiner in July

10,000's of Avalon ASICs Set to Rival ASICMiner in July submitted by Micro_lite to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Avalon might be getting a $200 million investment and 20nm technology to become the leader of the mining market

Avalon might be getting a $200 million investment and 20nm technology to become the leader of the mining market submitted by tntpie to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Addressing the many concerns related to Obelisk

Why make ASICs at all?

Our blog has a longer post on the subject, but the ultimate answer is that GPU mining is very insecure. For the vast majority of GPU mined coins out there (including Sia), it is the case that there are multiple, if not many, individuals who operate enough GPUs to execute a 51% attack against the coin all by themselves. There are some very large Ethereum GPU farms out there, and they are a threat to all small GPU-mined coins. (our market cap is a factor of 50 smaller than Ethereum - we are a small coin). And it's not just Ethereum farms to be afraid of, there are massive GPU farms dedicated to machine learning as well, and other big-data related use cases. All of those are potential sources for a 51% attack. Even worse, if the price of the coin tanks following such an attack, the attacker has nothing to lose, because the core purpose of their hardware is unrelated to Sia, and unaffected by a change in price.
Though it sounds terrible and unintuitive, a single centralized entity running ASICs would be a much more secure situation than this. Because with a single central ASIC entity, you get two huge advantages:
  1. There's only 1 entity capable of performing a 51% attack. This is much better than having multiple entities that are each individually capable of performing a 51% attack.
  2. If the price of the coin falls, the entity that has all of the hardware loses a lot of money. That hardware isn't good for anything besides Sia mining, so that entity is quite invested in propping up the siacoin price.
We chose ASICs over GPUs because even the worst case scenario is more secure and better for the coin than the situation with GPU mining.
But we also did not want a single entity owning and operating all of the ASICs. That's when we realized, if we were ASIC manufacturers ourselves, we could guarantee that at least one entity is selling chips to the larger community. The unfortunate fact is that either way, there is going to be a small number of chip manufacturers who have the power to sell chips to the community. Even so, this is a better situation than what you get with GPU mining.
We are making ASICs so that we can guarantee the first batch of ASICs will make it to the Sia community. Without that, we have no idea if the first batch of ASICs will be sold to the public or hoarded by some greedy investors who were able to pay the full price of manufacturing up-front.

Why are you doing the presale so early?

We, put simply, don't have enough cash even to do the early development of the chips. We need financing to pay for chip development.
Traditionally, we would find some private investors, have them front some millions, and in return promise them a very good deal on some hardware. The private investors would get the first stab at buying ASICs, they'd get a huge chunk, and they'd get them at an exclusive deal for taking on the risk early. We actually had private investors come forward offering this to us, with enough money to fund the full development and manufacture of the first batch of chips - this isn't a hypothetical, it's a real offer that the Sia team received.
This didn't seem fair to us. When we finally did get to the point where the miners were ready to be sold to the community, we would have to offer the community a worse deal. Less risky, but ultimately it would mean that the community was excluded from the opportunity of participating early, and the result is a huge chunk of the chips going to some private investors.
Such a situation is still better than GPU mining, but it didn't seem like the best that we could do. We felt that we could do better by opening the early presale to everyone.

Why not accept credit cards?

Payment processors are not friendly to Bitcoin products. We contacted Stripe and were told point-blank that they would not process payments for cryptocurrency miners. We appreciate everyone who pointed us towards Stripe as a bitcoin-friendly company, but they gave us a direct no.
Paypal has a long history of freezing merchant accounts with little warning, and when they do so they freeze your existing money in addition to freezing incoming payments - we would be unable to pay our bills if Paypal did this to us, and it would unquestionably cause delays. Visa and MasterCard are not much better in terms of track record.
Losing access to our accounts would unquestionably cause delays. ASIC hardware is already well known to suffer from serious delays, and we need to limit our exposure to delays.
We are in an industry that is unfortunately fraught with fraud. With revenue-generated devices such as miners, criminals are much more likely to try to target these devices as a way to cash in on stolen credit cards, stolen identities, hacked bank accounts, etc. The fraud rates are staggering, and as a result most payment processors outright refuse to deal with it. We are aware that Bitmain is partnered with Paypal, though we don't know the details behind how that came to be.

Why not accept Siacoin?

This was a harder decision. We could quite easily choose to accept siacoin, however we fear that Siacoin is not ready to handle such a massive presale. The market cap and daily volume of Bitcoin is a factor of 100 times as large as the Siacoin market cap and volume. Moving millions or tens of millions of dollars through Bitcoin is not likely to make much of a dent. Siacoin on the other hand, a sudden sell order for millions of dollars would likely tank the price. That not only means the ecosystem is unhappy with us, it also means that we might only be able to sell $2499 of siacoin for $2200.
A lot of people have accused us of not having confidence in our own coin. Unfortunately, this is true. Even at a $500 million market cap, Sia is not ready to handle a presale of this size. It's a pragmatic decision based on the fact that we don't want to dump our own coin. We know that people will be selling siacoin to buy the miners anyway, but we still feel that this situation is much better than us accepting siacoin directly.
This decision was a disappointment for us as well. We would love to accept siacoin, and if we weren't talking about processing millions of dollars in a single day, we absolutely would be accepting siacoin. And, as Sia continues growing up, the concerns above will become less and less.

What about this 5% gains/losses stuff?

Our intention was never to play fishy financial games with our users, and honestly this isn't even something that crossed our minds as a potential problem point. I think a big part of the issue was that people did not realize we will be converting to US dollars as fast as possible - we will be doing the conversion in minutes or hours as long as we can keep up with the order volume.
The rationale is very simple. If the price plummets before we are able to convert the Bitcoin, we won't have enough money to create the hardware. We really don't expect this to matter, because we don't expect the price to swing by more than $100 (which is what would be required) in the few hours that we're going to be sitting on the BTC. If it does, we'll need more coins or we can't produce the hardware - our costs are in dollars, which means we need to end up with the right amount of dollars in our account at the end of the day.
The original stance on not returning gains was also very simple. There's no transparency into when we sell the coins. If we sell the coins within 60 minutes of receiving them, and then 4 hours later there's a huge surge in the price, we will almost certainly have users emailing us and posting about how we owe them a refund. We won't have that refund, because we'll have sold the coins before the price rise.
There's not much we can do to provide transparency into this either. And we're likely to get requests for refunds even if it takes 3 months for Bitcoin to rise by 5%. This promise of returning gains that we've put forward is going to be a massive headache, because we're not expecting to have any gains, even if the price goes up by that much we'll have likely converted to USD faster than that. Our whole goal is to convert to USD as fast as possible.
We're sorry that we have to go through this headache at all. If we could get set up with a processor like Stripe, we could accept both Bitcoin and USD and let them deal with the conversion process, slippage risk, and all the other headache associated with using multiple currencies.

Why shipping a full 12 months away?

Before we set out to make Sia miners, we did a study of companies who had previously sold and pre-sold Bitcoin miners. This included talking to both Avalon and Butterfly Labs, and talking to professionals and advisors who have shipped hardware successfully in other industries. The core piece of advice we got was pretty consistent: expect delays. Expect lots of delays, and expect them to come from the most absurd setbacks. (Example: one of the people we talked to had to delay their product because there was a global shortage of power supplies, and they had to wait in line behind billion dollar companies to get some).
Our projections indicate that if all goes well, we should be able to ship the miners in 6-8 months. Nothing we are doing is new. Plenty of companies have gone through the process of developing a chip, manufacturing it, putting it in a box, and then shipping it to users. There is almost no innovation risk here. Sia's PoW algorithm is deliberately very ASIC friendly, even more than Bitcoin. We have advisors who have gone through this process before, and the types of challenges facing us are well known.
6-8 months is reasonable, except that every single person we've talked to has told us that unexpected delays is a guarantee, and that by nature of being unexpected, there's not really any way to prevent them by planning around them. Delays are just inherent to shipping hardware. So we chose to set our target at 12 months.
We will ship the miners as soon as they are ready. If we are a few months ahead of schedule, and have somehow managed to avoid the foretold delays, we will ship them months ahead of schedule. But we want our users to have a realistic understanding of the expected delays. We've baked a generous amount of time for setbacks into our shipping date. We'll almost certainly need at least some of it.

Why $2499?

Making chips is very expensive. We have to sell thousands of units to cover the cost of the chips. A nontrivial percentage of the price is going to go towards chassis, shipping, power supply, control board, fans, etc. Those costs are relatively the same even if we put in fewer chips, which means the total percentage of our budget going towards chips drops significantly. If we cut the price in half, we'll have to sell roughly three times as many units to break even on the cost of the chips. If we cut the price in half again, we'd need to sell a completely unreasonable number of units to break even on the cost of the chips. It's unfortunate, but the fixed costs of chip manufacture means that we really need vast majority of the price of the unit to be spent on chips, otherwise we simply won't be able to sell enough units.
There is a second reason as well. As stated in the section above, the industry is plagued by delays an unexpected expenses. We need a healthy budget to plan around potential setbacks, because we've been guaranteed that there will be multiple significant setbacks by those who have gone through this process before. If we bring down the price of the unit, we will also be reducing the amount of wiggle room we have for disaster if suddenly we have to replace parts, re-do designs, or otherwise perform expensive adjustments to our plans.

Are you guys qualified to be working on hardware?

Zach is a mechanical engineer, I've been in the Bitcoin space since before ASICs started shipping, and we have advisors who have successfully shipped hardware before. The team that is designing the chips for the miner has designed chips and shipped chips for Bitcoin miners previously - they are familiar with the whole process, and have done it before. The people in charge of designing the PCB board and other aspects of the miner are also all experienced with their respective tasks. We will be facilitating frequent and strong communications between everyone working on the various components of the miner.
The ultimate answer is that the Sia development team is not qualified to be making this type of hardware. However, the Sia development team is not the team working on the hardware. Most of the heavy lifting is being performed by teams with lots of experience in this industry, including experience that is directly related to cryptocurrency miners.
What we are doing is not new. Dozens of cryptocurrency miners have been created and shipped in the past, and we are not starting from day zero. We have many advantages over the previous rounds of pre-sale cryptocurrency miners, but the biggest is that it's no longer the wild west of hardware design. There is a standard, and there are tried-and-true methods for making reliable cryptocurrency miners. We get to fall back on the mistakes and successes of the many miners that have been built previously, and we will be leaning heavily on teams and people that have direct experience in this field as opposed to doing everything ourselves.

Does this mean that Sia is getting less attention from the developers?

Sia right now has four full time employees. Myself, Zach, Luke, and Johnathan. Zach was hired in June 2017, less than one month ago. He is not a programmer.
Luke and Johnathan will continue with the same responsibilities that they've always had. They helped out a little bit in setting up the website, and in setting up a secure database to process orders + payment information, however the majority of their time has been focused on Sia even as we set up this presale. Going forward, they will be almost entirely uninvolved in Obelisk.
I have had to allocate about 25% of my time to Obelisk. Slightly more this week, due to the PR meltdown we had from the initial announcement. But most of my time is still going towards Sia. Most people know I work over 100 hours per week (some weeks will eclipse 120), and that a quarter of my time is not a small amount.
Zach is closer to 50% Sia, 50% Obelisk at this point. We're expecting that to tone down once the presale is over - much of this time has been spent with banks, with lawyers, with payment processors, and we won't have to do that beyond the initial setup phase. Zach and myself will still be having weekly conversations with every part of the Obelisk supply chain, including the chip designers, chip manufacturers, control board designers, the miner assembly teams, and the fulfillment centers, so even after the presale there will be effort going towards Obelisk.
But nobody on the Sia team is doing chip design, nobody is doing control board design, most of the really heavy work is being done by experienced teams and suppliers that we've found and already spent weeks vetting and verifying. We incorporated Obelisk as a separate company precisely so that Obelisk would eventually have a completely separate team.
And finally, as Obelisk is wholly owned by Nebulous, a successful hardware company does mean revenue and income for the Sia team. Cryptocurrency mining tends to be low margin, so tens of millions in revenue for Obelisk does not necessarily millions in funding for the Sia team. But it is something, and it will give us more time to get the storage platform to the next levels of maturity.

Conclusion

I know that a lot of you are concerned about the miner presale that we are conducting. I hope that this post has helped to alleviate those concerns. I hope it makes sense why we are doing a public presale, instead of seeking private investment until we have a full prototype. I hope this post has clarified our decisions around payment methods, and around our price point. I hope you feel more confident that this is something we will be able to pull off. And finally, I hope I've reassured you guys that Sia is still our primary focus, and that we haven't suddenly pivoted into being a hardware company.
We are ultimately doing this to provide better security to the Sia network. GPU mined coins are frighteningly insecure, and Sia is now large enough where there is serious money on the line. We are doing this to gain security, and also to ensure as much decentralization as possible when it comes to chip manufacture.
We are typically viewed as one of the most reputable teams in cryptocurrency, and I know it's why a lot of you are here. We hope that the Sia ASIC that we are going to be manufacturing and s