• Posted in: Home
• 26
• Author: admin

• • Getting Started Getting Started • • • • • • • • Wallets Wallets • Decrediton (GUI) Decrediton (GUI) • • • CLI Wallet CLI Wallet • • • • • • • • • Proof-of-Stake Mining Proof-of-Stake Mining • • • PoS FAQ PoS FAQ • • • • • • Proof-of-Work Mining Proof-of-Work Mining • • • • FAQ FAQ • • • • • • • Advanced Advanced • • • • • • • • • • • • Research Research • Overview Table of contents • • • • • • • • • • • Contributing Contributing • • • Guidelines Guidelines • • • About About • • • • Archive Archive • •. Overview Distributed timestamping protocols were first applied to decentralizing a financial network in the ground-breaking paper on Bitcoin by Nakamoto. The field has seen explosive research follow-up from both amateurs and professionals, competing to offer extensions, adjustments, improvements, and refinements of the existing protocol. Notable implementations of new ideas include Ethereum, which extended scripting, CryptoNote, which refined privacy, and Sidechains, which investigated two-way pegs with 1:1 Bitcoin tokens. These protocols all utilize proof-of-work (PoW) as originally described in the Bitcoin whitepaper. A common extension to the Bitcoin protocol modifies the consensus mechanism to either completely or partially use proof-of-stake (PoS), or the use of one’s stake (tokens) rather than one’s computational power to participate in the timestamping process. The first proof-of-stake blockchain based on the Bitcoin protocol was implemented in 2012 by King and Nadal, and includes both PoW and PoS that gradually skew towards complete PoS over time.

Criticisms of pure PoS consensus systems have themselves been abundant, with the most vehement opposition coming from those working with purely PoW blockchains. The most common argument against PoS for distributed timestamping is “nothing-at-stake” or “costless simulation”, describing the systematic instability resulting from stakeholders being able to generate alternatively timestamped histories with no cost to themselves. Despite the controversy, it is apparent that systems with a PoS overlay dependent on a PoW timestamping system may be able to independently achieve consensus. This is mathematically explored by Bentov and colleagues in a paper on their scheme, proof-of-activity (PoA), and appears to be a viable extension to the PoW protocols that may enable some interesting new properties. A similar design called MC2 was earlier proposed by Mackenzie in 2013. Here we describe the construction and implementation of a similar consensus system that we have named “Decred”. Research work in Decred is currently organized around the following subsections: • • • • • • • • • References.

Mine Ethereum and Decred or only Ethereum? Do you mine both or only eth? Extra power doesn't come close to offsetting that extra cash. How to dual mine Ethereum Classic (ETC) and Decred (DCR). Bitcoin Cash (BCC) Hard Fork Explained August 16, 2017; Life Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine.

Some of you might remember that back in June Sia has announced their plans to called the Obelisk SC1 capable of 300+ GH/S at 500W or less power consumption according to the latest information. Well, it seems that Sia has figured out that since Decred (DCR) uses a very similar algorithm to what SiaCoin (SC) uses (both being variations of Blake) they can also develop the first ASIC miner for Decred as well. The Obelisk DCR1 should be capable of at least 475 GH/s with less than 500W of power usage and both ASIC miners should be available at pretty much the same time. So now the pre-sale of the first batch of 4000 Obelisk DCR1 ASIC miners for Decred (DCR) is up for pre-sale on the Obelist’s website along the Obelist SC1 ASIC miner pre-sale for SiaCoin (SC). Both pre-sales will run up until November 24th and they are expected to ship on or before June 30th, 2018.

Both Obelisk ASIC miners are available for pre-order at a price of $2499 USD and come with a 6 week exclusive mining period and a $250 per-unit coupon for future Obelisk purchases as a bonus. Now, since this is a pre-order for a product that is currently in development we advice you to be extra careful as we’ve seen a fair share of fails in that area and a lot of empty promises. We are not saying anything for the Obelisk, it seems to have a solid team working on the project according to the information available, we are just warning you to be careful as it is a pre-order for a product that is not yet developed and the final device (if/when available) may as well be different in terms of specifications as we’ve seen that happening as well. If by the second half of next year Sia manages to deliver on their promise with the Obelisk ASIC miners for SiaCoin (SC) and Decred (DCR) they will significantly change the landscape for these two crypto coins. Now it is yet unclear how this will affect things regarding the use of the Sia file hosting services since it is more than just a crypto coin while Decred is more of a traditional crypto coin.

The promise of securing the network better with ASICs is not new, the more important question here however is what if a limited number of people hold most of the ASIC’s power in a network and then it becomes pointless to mine if you do not have access to an ASIC miner and/or cannot afford one. – Other Similar Publications: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •. It doesn’t mention anywhere on their site if these people have the skills to carry out the tasks. They are raising large amounts of capital 4000 * $2500 = 10 million.

There are strict controls over this type of activity if they were doing this in a conventional way. I’m guessing they are subject to these controls but they are avoiding them by not following orthodox methods. They have to pay a company to create the Asci. They have to pay developers and managers.10 million doesn’t seem to be enough. The guy heading this is 24 years old.

That alone is something to worry about. It seems he has worked professionally for less than a year. In my mind there are so many alarm bells ringing it is deafening. There is no mentiin(and probably no thought given to) of failure to complete the work or failure to actually meet hash rate. I mean, what criteria are they using to determine hash rate?

There is no mention on their site. I am a software developer/ team lead with nearly 20 years experience in investment banking. I’ve been involved in and led multiple projects from Greenfield to completion and this Obelisk thing really smells fishy.

Anybody else find this whole thing odd? I was also thinking the same thing about costs. $10M to pay chip engineers (not cheap) to design a custom chip. Also need to work with a fab, and pay for production. If it were only $10M to make an ASIC, BTC ASICs would have arrived sooner. Nvidia used a ghetto FPGA for their GSync technology because they didn’t want to pay for a custom ASIC, and Nvidia works with billions of dollars, not millions.

I also find their reasoning for the ASIC “Securing the network”, so if SIA goes to the gutter, we will force them poor suckers who bought our ASIC to mine SIA because that’s all they can do. With only (up to, currently half) 4000 units, it would be trivial for someone with reasonable money to just buy enough to attack network. ASICs lead heavily to centralization, which is terrible for security. Seems very plausible it is a quick cash grab.

Maybe another Butterfly Labs? Copyright ©2014-2018 - - All About BTC, LTC, ETH mining as well as other alternative crypto currencies. This is a blog for crypto currency miners and users of Bitcoin (BTC), Litecoin (LTC), Ethereum (ETH), ZCash (ZEC) and many others.

Asch XAS Mining Profitability. If you find helpful and useful information you can support us by donating altcoins or Bitcoin (BTC) to: 1AxbMZwtcmCByrHiaWwhse5r6ea1YgBwk1 ETH: 0x8d785ff337046444d8afbac169bcb7c0adfb3266 - LTC: LPYFPK7dL1uEtwrAteLmxs7w8Je446gAAJ - ZEC: t1gg5rWxeMBMsyDRMrq5PJdFLiWQ86LGggi.