Asic Fpga Chip Design - turismo-in.it

The Economics of "ASICs" for RandomX

Regarding RandomX and ASICs, people seem to mis-understand the interaction between hardware/software, the costs of development/manufacture of world class semiconductors, and the economics of ASIC mining.
These on-chip, bare metal processing units that RandomX requires are highly advanced, and required to make chips "smart." An "ASIC" takes simple dumb functions and iterates them on bare silicon, rather than as a software abstraction (a layer higher) on top of the underlying hardware.
There are a few things that RandomX didn't include, meaning that a fully optimized "ASIC" processor could eliminate some unused logic units to make room for the others particular to RandomX. At most, the designers of RandomX estimate a 2x improvement over current CPUs.
2x. That's almost nothing when you consider the economics of what it takes to make one of these things. As someone who spent 5 years as a process engineer in a world class semicon fab, I can tell you the design, testing, manufacture and turnaround time for advanced CPUs is enormous. Nothing like dumb SHA256 ASICs or simple memory chips. You better be gettting a huge return on investment to go to all that trouble.
2x is nothing. Bitcoin ASICs arose because there was something on the order of 1000x speed advantage over GPUs. That's the kind of economics you need to recoup the costs involved. Not to mention that you are still competing against the ever progressing AMD and Intel advancements (and probably ARM and RISC-V soon enough). Bitmain has very little competition. They have the patents and the process for new ASICs.
So no, it's unlikely, for years, that anyone will develop an economically viable "ASIC" (lol) for RandomX.
What we might see are CPU manufacturers use RandomX as a benchmark for their new units, since you will have the promise of a sort of "rebate" by mining Monero. In fact that could be an awesome marketing opportunity for Monero.
submitted by bawdyanarchist to Monero [link] [comments]

The Economics of "ASICs" for RandomX

Cross posted from Monero
Regarding RandomX and ASICs, people seem to mis-understand the interaction between hardware/software, the costs of development/manufacture of world class semiconductors, and the economics of ASIC mining.
These on-chip, bare metal processing units that RandomX requires are highly advanced, and required to make chips "smart." An "ASIC" takes simple dumb functions and iterates them on bare silicon, rather than as a software abstraction (a layer higher) on top of the underlying hardware.
There are a few things that RandomX didn't include, meaning that a fully optimized "ASIC" processor could eliminate some unused logic units to make room for the others particular to RandomX. At most, the designers of RandomX estimate a 2x improvement over current CPUs.
2x. That's almost nothing when you consider the economics of what it takes to make one of these things. As someone who spent 5 years as a process engineer in a world class semicon fab, I can tell you the design, testing, manufacture and turnaround time for advanced CPUs is enormous. Nothing like dumb SHA256 ASICs or simple memory chips. You better be gettting a huge return on investment to go to all that trouble.
2x is nothing. Bitcoin ASICs arose because there was something on the order of 1000x speed advantage over GPUs. That's the kind of economics you need to recoup the costs involved. Not to mention that you are still competing against the ever progressing AMD and Intel advancements (and probably ARM and RISC-V soon enough). Bitmain has very little competition. They have the patents and the process for new ASICs.
So no, it's unlikely, for years, that anyone will develop an economically viable "ASIC" (lol) for RandomX.
What we might see are CPU manufacturers use RandomX as a benchmark for their new units, since you will have the promise of a sort of "rebate" by mining Monero. In fact that could be an awesome marketing opportunity for Monero.
submitted by bawdyanarchist to CryptoCurrency [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]

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]

Vitalik's response to Tuur

I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
Intro
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, …
Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable. https://twitter.com/VladZamfistatus/838006311598030848
@VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
Ethereum's Joe Lubin in June 2014: "anticipate blockchain bloat—working on various sharding ideas". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJG9g0lCPU8&feature=youtu.be&t=36m41s
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
That review was off the mark in many ways, eg. see https://twitter.com/technocrypto/status/1071111404340604929, and by the way CBC is not even a prerequisite for Serenity
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
Ok
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
@TuurDemeester Buterin & Poon just published a new scaling proposal for Ethereum, "strongly complementary to base-layer PoS and sharding": plasma.io https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/895467347502182401
Yay, Plasma!
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
And here's a set of long arguments from me on why proof of stake is just fine: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-FAQ. For a more philosophical piece, see https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/a-proof-of-stake-design-philosophy-506585978d51
15/ Also check out this thread about how Proof of Stake blockchains require subjectivity (i.e. a trusted third party) to achieve consensus: https://forum.blockstack.org/t/pos-blockchains-require-subjectivity-to-reach-consensus/762?u=muneeb … and this thread on Bitcoin: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59t48m/proofofstake_question/
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/. It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
@TuurDemeester TIL Proof-of-stake based private currency designs date at least back to 1998. https://medium.com/swlh/the-untold-history-of-bitcoin-enter-the-cypherpunks-f764dee962a1
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
[email protected] has been repeatedly accused of /criticised for not crediting prior art. Once again with plasma: https://twitter.com/DamelonBCWS/status/895643582278782976
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and ethresear.ch posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
...
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
  • What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
...
21/ I was very serious about my criticism. In fact, each one of the three points addressed what Vitalik Buterin has described as “unique value propositions of Ethereum proper”. https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/5jk3he/how_to_prevent_the_cannibalism_of_ethereum_into/dbgujr8/
...
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way: https://twitter.com/tuurdemeestestatus/545993119599460353
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
...
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Looks like another Ethereum hard-fork is going to remove the "Ice Age" (difficulty increase meant to incentivize transition to PoS). https://www.cryptocompare.com/coins/guides/what-is-the-ethereum-ice-age/
How is that a broken promise? There was no social contract to only replace the difficulty-bombed protocol with a PoS chain.
31/ Another idea that was marketed heavily early on, was that with ETH you could program smart contract as easily as javascript applications.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: I forgot, but in 2014 Ethereum was quite literally described as "Javascript-on-the-blockchain"
Agree that was over-optimistic, though the part of the metaphor that's problematic is the "be done with complex apps in a couple hours" part, NOT the "general-purpose languages are great" part.
32/ This was criticized by P2P & OS developers as a reckless notion, given that every smart contracts is actually a “de novo cryptographic protocol”. In other words, it’s playing with fire. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See above
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
Christopher Allen @ChristopherA: AWS cost: $0.000000066 for calc, Ethereum: $26.55. This is about 400 million times as expensive. World computer? https://hackernoon.com/ether-purchase-power-df40a38c5a2f
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
@TuurDemeester Finally a media article touching on the elephant in the room: Ethereum has become highly centralized. #infura https://www.coindesk.com/the-race-is-on-to-replace-ethereums-most-centralized-layeamp?__twitter_impression=true
See above
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up". http://ow.ly/qW49302Pp92
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
See above
39/ Other potential signs of centralization: Vitalik Buterin signing a deal with a Russian government institution, and ETH core developers experimenting with semi-closed meetings: https://twitter.com/coindesk/status/902892844955860993 …,
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Often heard: "but Ethereum also has world class engineers working on the protocol". Please name names and relevant pedigree so I can follow and learn. https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/963029019447955461
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
41/ For a while, Microsoft veteran Lucius Meredith was mentioned as playing an important role in ETH scaling, but now he is likely distracted by the failure of his ETH scaling company RChain. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/12/24/understanding-serenity-part-i-abstraction/
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
Yay!
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
@TuurDemeester I just published “I’m not worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, but I am losing sleep over Ethereum” https://medium.com/p/im-not-worried-about-bitcoin-unlimited-but-i-am-losing-sleep-over-ethereum-b5251c54e66d
Ok, good.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
What do you mean "instead of"? We did create an open source project and testnet! Whether or not ETH is a security is a legal question; seems like SEC people agree it's not: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/bitcoin-and-ethereum-are-not-securities-but-some-cryptocurrencies-may-be-sec-official-says.html
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
Got it.
50/ I’ll close with a few words from Gregory Maxwell from 2016,: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1427885.msg14601127#msg14601127
See my rebuttal to Greg from 2 years ago: https://www.reddit.com/ethereum/comments/4g1bh6/greg_maxwells_critique_of_ethereum_blockchains/
submitted by shouldbdan to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Technical Cryptonight Discussion: What about low-latency RAM (RLDRAM 3, QDR-IV, or HMC) + ASICs?

The Cryptonight algorithm is described as ASIC resistant, in particular because of one feature:
A megabyte of internal memory is almost unacceptable for the modern ASICs. 
EDIT: Each instance of Cryptonight requires 2MB of RAM. Therefore, any Cryptonight multi-processor is required to have 2MB per instance. Since CPUs are incredibly well loaded with RAM (ie: 32MB L3 on Threadripper, 16 L3 on Ryzen, and plenty of L2+L3 on Skylake Servers), it seems unlikely that ASICs would be able to compete well vs CPUs.
In fact, a large number of people seem to be incredibly confident in Cryptonight's ASIC resistance. And indeed, anyone who knows how standard DDR4 works knows that DDR4 is unacceptable for Cryptonight. GDDR5 similarly doesn't look like a very good technology for Cryptonight, focusing on high-bandwidth instead of latency.
Which suggests only an ASIC RAM would be able to handle the 2MB that Cryptonight uses. Solid argument, but it seems to be missing a critical point of analysis from my eyes.
What about "exotic" RAM, like RLDRAM3 ?? Or even QDR-IV?

QDR-IV SRAM

QDR-IV SRAM is absurdly expensive. However, its a good example of "exotic RAM" that is available on the marketplace. I'm focusing on it however because QDR-IV is really simple to describe.
QDR-IV costs roughly $290 for 16Mbit x 18 bits. It is true Static-RAM. 18-bits are for 8-bits per byte + 1 parity bit, because QDR-IV is usually designed for high-speed routers.
QDR-IV has none of the speed or latency issues with DDR4 RAM. There are no "banks", there are no "refreshes", there are no "obliterate the data as you load into sense amplifiers". There's no "auto-charge" as you load the data from the sense-amps back into the capacitors.
Anything that could have caused latency issues is gone. QDR-IV is about as fast as you can get latency-wise. Every clock cycle, you specify an address, and QDR-IV will generate a response every clock cycle. In fact, QDR means "quad data rate" as the SRAM generates 2-reads and 2-writes per clock cycle. There is a slight amount of latency: 8-clock cycles for reads (7.5nanoseconds), and 5-clock cycles for writes (4.6nanoseconds). For those keeping track at home: AMD Zen's L3 cache has a latency of 40 clocks: aka 10nanoseconds at 4GHz
Basically, QDR-IV BEATS the L3 latency of modern CPUs. And we haven't even begun to talk software or ASIC optimizations yet.

CPU inefficiencies for Cryptonight

Now, if that weren't bad enough... CPUs have a few problems with the Cryptonight algorithm.
  1. AMD Zen and Intel Skylake CPUs transfer from L3 -> L2 -> L1 cache. Each of these transfers are in 64-byte chunks. Cryptonight only uses 16 of these bytes. This means that 75% of L3 cache bandwidth is wasted on 48-bytes that would never be used per inner-loop of Cryptonight. An ASIC would transfer only 16-bytes at a time, instantly increasing the RAM's speed by 4-fold.
  2. AES-NI instructions on Ryzen / Threadripper can only be done one-per-core. This means a 16-core Threadripper can at most perform 16 AES encryptions per clock tick. An ASIC can perform as many as you'd like, up to the speed of the RAM.
  3. CPUs waste a ton of energy: there's L1 and L2 caches which do NOTHING in Cryptonight. There are floating-point units, memory controllers, and more. An ASIC which strips things out to only the bare necessities (basically: AES for Cryptonight core) would be way more power efficient, even at ancient 65nm or 90nm designs.

Ideal RAM access pattern

For all yall who are used to DDR4, here's a special trick with QDR-IV or RLDRAM. You can pipeline accesses in QDR-IV or RLDRAM. What does this mean?
First, it should be noted that Cryptonight has the following RAM access pattern:
QDR-IV and RLDRAM3 still have latency involved. Assuming 8-clocks of latency, the naive access pattern would be:
  1. Read
  2. Stall
  3. Stall
  4. Stall
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Write
  11. Stall
  12. Stall
  13. Stall
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Read #2
  20. Stall
  21. Stall
  22. Stall
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Write #2
  29. Stall
  30. Stall
  31. Stall
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
This isn't very efficient: the RAM sits around waiting. Even with "latency reduced" RAM, you can see that the RAM still isn't doing very much. In fact, this is why people thought Cryptonight was safe against ASICs.
But what if we instead ran four instances in parallel? That way, there is always data flowing.
  1. Cryptonight #1 Read
  2. Cryptonight #2 Read
  3. Cryptonight #3 Read
  4. Cryptonight #4 Read
  5. Stall
  6. Stall
  7. Stall
  8. Stall
  9. Stall
  10. Cryptonight #1 Write
  11. Cryptonight #2 Write
  12. Cryptonight #3 Write
  13. Cryptonight #4 Write
  14. Stall
  15. Stall
  16. Stall
  17. Stall
  18. Stall
  19. Cryptonight #1 Read #2
  20. Cryptonight #2 Read #2
  21. Cryptonight #3 Read #2
  22. Cryptonight #4 Read #2
  23. Stall
  24. Stall
  25. Stall
  26. Stall
  27. Stall
  28. Cryptonight #1 Write #2
  29. Cryptonight #2 Write #2
  30. Cryptonight #3 Write #2
  31. Cryptonight #4 Write #2
  32. Stall
  33. Stall
  34. Stall
  35. Stall
  36. Stall
Notice: we're doing 4x the Cryptonight in the same amount of time. Now imagine if the stalls were COMPLETELY gone. DDR4 CANNOT do this. And that's why most people thought ASICs were impossible for Cryptonight.
Unfortunately, RLDRAM3 and QDR-IV can accomplish this kind of pipelining. In fact, that's what they were designed for.

RLDRAM3

As good as QDR-IV RAM is, its way too expensive. RLDRAM3 is almost as fast, but is way more complicated to use and describe. Due to the lower cost of RLDRAM3 however, I'd assume any ASIC for CryptoNight would use RLDRAM3 instead of the simpler QDR-IV. RLDRAM3 32Mbit x36 bits costs $180 at quantities == 1, and would support up to 64-Parallel Cryptonight instances (In contrast, a $800 AMD 1950x Threadripper supports 16 at the best).
Such a design would basically operate at the maximum speed of RLDRAM3. In the case of x36-bit bus and 2133MT/s, we're talking about 2133 / (Burst Length4 x 4 read/writes x 524288 inner loop) == 254 Full Cryptonight Hashes per Second.
254 Hashes per second sounds low, and it is. But we're talking about literally a two-chip design here. 1-chip for RAM, 1-chip for the ASIC/AES stuff. Such a design would consume no more than 5 Watts.
If you were to replicate the ~5W design 60-times, you'd get 15240 Hash/second at 300 Watts.

RLDRAM2

Depending on cost calculations, going cheaper and "making more" might be a better idea. RLDRAM2 is widely available at only $32 per chip at 800 MT/s.
Such a design would theoretically support 800 / 4x4x524288 == 95 Cryptonight Hashes per second.
The scary part: The RLDRAM2 chip there only uses 1W of power. Together, you get 5 Watts again as a reasonable power-estimate. x60 would be 5700 Hashes/second at 300 Watts.
Here's Micron's whitepaper on RLDRAM2: https://www.micron.com/~/media/documents/products/technical-note/dram/tn4902.pdf . RLDRAM3 is the same but denser, faster, and more power efficient.

Hybrid Cube Memory

Hybrid Cube Memory is "stacked RAM" designed for low latency. As far as I can tell, Hybrid Cube memory allows an insane amount of parallelism and pipelining. It'd be the future of an ASIC Cryptonight design. The existence of Hybrid Cube Memory is more about "Generation 2" or later. In effect, it demonstrates that future designs can be lower-power and give higher-speed.

Realistic ASIC Sketch: RLDRAM3 + Parallel Processing

The overall board design would be the ASIC, which would be a simple pipelined AES ASIC that talks with RLDRAM3 ($180) or RLDRAM2 ($30).
Its hard for me to estimate an ASIC's cost without the right tools or design. But a multi-project wafer like MOSIS offers "cheap" access to 14nm and 22nm nodes. Rumor is that this is roughly $100k per run for ~40 dies, suitable for research-and-development. Mass production would require further investments, but mass production at the ~65nm node is rumored to be in the single-digit $$millions or maybe even just 6-figures or so.
So realistically speaking: it'd take ~$10 Million investment + a talented engineer (or team of engineers) who are familiar with RLDRAM3, PCIe 3.0, ASIC design, AES, and Cryptonight to build an ASIC.

TL;DR:

submitted by dragontamer5788 to Monero [link] [comments]

Why I see Virtcoin as a $200 coin when really considering ASIC resistance

First of all, Vertcoin does indeed have a tremendous community, and this is not to be understated. However, this is only a fraction of the value position of this coin. I just want to expand on the ASIC resistance thing a bit. As an electrical engineer who has actually designed ASIC's, I do have some background on this. What I can tell you is that this term "ASIC Resistant" is that it is a little bit misleading. In theory, any algorithm can be turned into an ASIC. An ASIC or Application Specific Integrated Circuit is a digital or analog or mixed analog digital circuit that has been cast into Sea of Gates, Semi-Custom, or Full Custom ASIC technology. The cheapest route is Sea of Gates. If one didn't want to do a Sea of Gates ASIC, they could implement an algorithm in a FPGA, or Field Programmable Gate Array. Altera and Xilinx are the dominant players here. In the early days of Bitcoin, there were many FPGA miners, this was a very common way to mine Bitcoin.
Overall, It takes somewhere between USD $50,000 to $1,000,000 to make an ASIC. It's an expensive process. There is a tremendous amount of engineering, where the circuit is designed in System Verilog, Verilog or VHDL, and very extensive testbenches to make sure that the when the chip is made it works the first time. Engineers prototype ASICs in FPGA's, and the development boards for ASIC emulation can cost $20k or more just in themselves. Then the design goes to a foundry where the chip is made, and that will be expensive, $50k to $500k. So there has to be motivation to make an ASIC, such as high volume chip sales. For Sea of Gates technology, a rule of thumb is that there is typically a break even point when a company sells 1,000 to 2,000 chips a year that has been made into an ASIC. That is because Sea of Gates is about a $100k process.
The ASIC Resistance of Vertcoin is not technology related, i.e. the algorithm that is currently being used could be made into an ASIC. What makes Vertcoin ASIC resistance is the commitment of the team to change the algorithm if someone does make an ASIC to mine Vertcoin. This is what gives Vertcoin it's value position. I really appreciate that! This is a de-facto way to limit the power of miners, in one simple swipe.
How wants to deal with this Bitcoin forking situation anymore? At this point, with the upcoming fork, it seems more and more unnecessary. I see Bitcoin as a storage of value layer, and other coins such as VTC and LTC as transaction layer coins.
To me what gives VTC value is the intention of the community AND the consequent action of it.
submitted by TeslaCrytpo to vertcoin [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 selling strengthens this reputation, but ultimately we will not find out until the miners are actually being shipped.
We continue to be excited about this new product. We truly do feel that ASICs are the right direction for Sia, and we also feel that we are doing the right thing by bringing the opportunity to own a Sia ASIC to the broader Sia community. We are sorry for the fallout from our sloppy original announcement, and we hope that we have since made up for it.
Finally, we hope that you are interested in buying a miner. Even if we only sell a small batch, ASICs are going to utterly dominate the hashrate of Sia going forward. This is an egalitarian sale where everyone has equal opportunity to buy a miner - there's no cap, and we will ensure that small buyers are not shut out by larger buyers in any way.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An update from Richard

E-mail update from Richard - the team have been busy :)
Electroneum - Tech Update, Instant Payment Patent & More Hi Everyone,
I’m currently whizzing around Asia and the Middle East to meet with some important contacts that were made at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.
This is going to be quite a long update (I’ve just read through it as I make this comment – and it’s a monster! I knew I should have written a novel) Here’s a synopsis (not in any order) for a fast update – then read the detail below, if you want to know more…
Patent Pending Secured! We’ve worked on this since last year, it protects our cryptocurrency hybrid system that will allow us to provide INSTANT cryptocurrency payments as well as cryptocurrency subscription payments! It is a game changer for the entire cryptocurrency industry, when it comes to everyday use.
Market sentiment (and how to change it) I’ll cover why the market has been filled with FALSE negativity and how we are going to change it (you can help too!).
Tech update (51% Attack, ASICS & more) There is no hard evidence that there IS a 51% attack taking place. The evidence that is being used is not evidence of a 51% attack in this instance, it’s a timestamp bug that is causing no problems at all. ASICS are nothing to worry about – we have ASIC resistance in the next update – which will be before the ASIC chips are widely available. Blockchain flooding, we are working on this from two ends – a blockchain update AND our patent makes the blockchain flooding far less problematic.
New technical team member introductions Two new blockchain based team members to introduce, who are already well in to fixing everything the market is worried about.
Growth (let’s end on a positive note!) Did you know that Electroneum is ahead of Twitter, Facebook & Dropbox in speed of growth? I’ll explain why.
Here are the full details if you want to dive in. Otherwise, thanks for reading this far - have a great day!
Changing the market sentiment… There is an enormous amount of negative and often false information flying around the internet about Electroneum. There has been a concerted effort by a number of very credible sounding people to try and damage the Electroneum brand for their own reasons or for their own financial gain.
A relatively small number of people have been spreading lies, fears and doubts at any sign of positivity. There is also an automated trading strategy that has kept placing tiny sell orders just under the market price which along with the negative narrative, has resulted in loop of negativity that seems to feed itself.
I’d like everyone to know that the Electroneum project is not in any danger and whilst there are some legitimate questions such as when we will be implementing ASIC resistance (covered below), there is nothing that is going to cause us long term harm.
An important thing to remember is that a group of people think it is worth spending a lot of their own money, and time, trying to discredit Electroneum and our team. We’ve always expected this because we are disruptive to the industry.
There is no other cryptocurrency that is poised to reach so many users, and there is no other cryptocurrency that has solved the problem of instantaneous transactions that will allow cryptocurrencies (not jut ours!) to be spent online or in shops, restaurants, cafés etc. Currently the volume of ETN traded every day is low and the ability for someone to manipulate the price exists. As we move forwards onto the largest crypto exchanges and we start delivering on our promises, I hope to see that daily trading volumes grow to the point that that cannot be manipulated. We will change the sentiment of people who doubt the project of the coming weeks and months with both innovative technology and by becoming the first cryptocurrency to start being used in everyday transactions by millions of users.
If you’d like to see market sentiment changing – don’t forget you can help! Any time you see negativity for negativity’s sake make a comment that points out some positives. I’m not asking for a giant spam army to take over the world (evil laugh) but all of YOU are Electroneum. It wouldn’t exist without you, so feel free to get involved and make positive comments about YOUR project. Electroneum.
Two New Blockchain Developers to Introduce
Chris Harrison, working from our UK office. Chris joined us recently and has a background in Fintech and blockchain. He brings an exceptionally high level of understanding of the mathematics behind cryptocurrencies and develops in C++ (among others!), the language that our blockchain codebase is written in. He is working closely with our existing team and our second new blockchain starter Andre. https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopher-harrison-3a95a2a0/
Andre Patta, working from Brazil. Andre has a huge amount of experience as a corporate software engineer working with companies such as Ericsson, and has spent much of his time in recent years working on the interaction of decentralised technology with the financial sector. He has worked extensively with the blockchain technologies of Ethereum and Monero. https://br.linkedin.com/in/andre-patta-77859b56
We are very lucky to have an AWESOME Electroneum team and both of the two new developers will add their strengths and take us to new heights.
Tech Update Both of the new team members are already working closely with our existing team to get a blockchain update ready for release. This will include ASIC resistance, update to the core blockchain code, an algorithm tweak to prevent empty blocks being profitable for miners and a number of bug fixes and tweaks.
ASIC Resistance There seems to be a lot of misinformation circulating about ASICS. ASICS are a type of computer chip designed to do just one job, and do it well. There is a new ASIC out that enables owners of those machines to mine ETN at a much higher hashrate than GPU miners, however there are currently only very limited numbers of them, and they are not available to purchase at the moment (they are not easy to buy, we are trying to get some for testing). The next batch are due out in June. We will have our ASIC resistance in place before they become a potential problem to us.
51% attack. There are rumours that a 51% attack on ETN is happening. People have been quoting altered timestamps as evidence of this, but that is a bug that we are aware of and has been there since the first day we launched. It will be fixed but is nothing to worry about. Orphaned blocks have no fundamentally negative effect on the functionality of the blockchain.
Any cryptocurrency can suffer from a 51% attack – where someone controls 51% or more of the mining power, it gives them the ability to make false entries into the ledger – however there is no HARD evidence that this is taking place. Our investigations have been unable to identify an attack, however people are starting to believe it because of the credibility of some of the article writers and the timestamp issue. Ask yourself this – if someone could manipulate a cryptocurrency and make money from that manipulation, why would they announce their ability by altering time stamps? They would not. The rumours of this attack are what is called FUD in this market (the spreading of Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).
Blockchain flooding. It’s true that someone is spending their own money to flood the ETN blockchain with transactions. Whilst a lot is being made of it by the same people, It’s actually been quite useful to us, as we need to understand the load requirements for true mass adoption. We have some great data from is and are working on a tweak to the blockchain code that will enable us to do something about this, including a change to the dynamic block sizing algorithm (more on this in another update) – but remember that our instant payment system that is coming and is protected in our patent (see below), makes a blockchain flooding attack completely harmless against ETN. Our systems can verify the payment and if it takes hours to hit the blockchain, the user and vendor are unconcerned (read about this in the patent section below).
In short, don’t worry, all the tech is in hand. Technical glitches and problems will always happen in any company scaling as fast as we are – but we will always find them and resolve them.
Instant cryptocurrency payments & crypto subscriptions - Patent Pending We are completely confident we will be the largest cryptocurrency by user numbers within a year. We are also confident that we will be the most widely USED cryptocurrency, with developments in instant EPOS (electronic point of sale – or tills as we call them in England!) and ecommerce.
Our instant cryptocurrency payment technology patent is now officially “patent pending” so we can now discuss some exciting details about it.
I’ve made hints about this for weeks, I really thought we’d have it submitted sooner, but it’s an exceptionally detailed patent that enables us to do some VERY exciting things!
Instantaneous Cryptocurrency Payments We have a hybrid model, with a centralised app and decentralised blockchain it enables us to INSTANTLY confirm to a vendor (shop or online store) that an Electroneum user HAS the funds available in their wallet and therefore they can checkout of an ecommerce system or pay at a shop till and take the goods or service, instantly. We then (internally) ring-fence the funds to prevent them double spending (just like the blockchain does) – and move the transaction to the blockchain in good time.
The vendor and the user are happy because they got to buy something in a shop or online with zero fuss, bother or delay, and the vendor trusts us to ensure the payment is on its way. Vendors are used to waiting after an instant SUCCESS or FAILURE message – as that’s what a credit card machine does. The money from a credit card sale is only deposited into the vendors bank after a couple of days or more.
Some of the retailers we’ve been speaking to right back from last year, absolutely needed instantaneous payments before they would ever consider accepting cryptocurrency – which is why we’ve spent so much time and effort on this patent and the back-end technology that allows it. (not a small amount of money either!). A lot of large vendors have been waiting for this patent to be filed, as it changes the entire way a cryptocurrency can be used and takes it out from being just a relatively small technical user group, to being a genuinely useful way to make real world transactions.
If the user is using the Electroneum App or web wallet system, and the vendor has an account with us, the instant payment system will be available to them. Instant payments can even happen between our users – allowing anyone to instantly transfer funds.
The back – end system is not quite ready to roll out, but we’ve already been writing the code in advance of the patent going live. We will have it to MVP (minimum viable proposition) within the next couple of months (sooner if we can), which will allow vendors to get an instant notification of a payment, which they can hook in to their existing payment processing facility. We are working with integration with a couple of mobile network operators first, as we are commercially further ahead with them than anyone else. We are keen to work with any large brands as they can leverage being “first in their industry” to accept cryptocurrency and gain the benefit of free publicity.
Cryptocurrency Subscription Payments So, if instant cryptocurrency payments wasn’t exciting enough, the technology and the patent covers something else that is a first in cryptocurrencies too, subscription payments in crypto!
Our hybrid model ALSO allows us to prompt a user for permission and then set up a subscription to make a regular payment to a vendor! Who do we know who likes subscriptions? Well, just about everybody in business is the answer – starting with the mobile operators.
Our patent covers subscriptions in cryptocurrencies and it covers subscriptions in cryptocurrencies to the value of any fiat currency, allowing a subscription to be either XX ETN per month (or week etc) or YY US Dollars worth of ETN per month. Users can control their subscriptions and permissions via a web interface (to be released).
Our patent covers all cryptocurrencies and even allows us to provide instant payments or subscriptions in any OTHER cryptocurrency via our system. The patent is over 100 pages of text and flowcharts, so it’s extremely robust and covers a number of other cryptocurrency innovations too, but I think that’s enough for now!
That’s right – we now have a protected patent that allows us to add bitcoin, Ethereum, monero or virtually any other cryptocurrency to our app and allow users to make instant crypto payments to any vendor who wants to have the convenience of instant check-out. This won’t be happening this year, as we want to get Electroneum (ETN) out there first into the market, but it gives us the ABILITY to provide this if the market demands it. We could therefore work with a large multinational vendor who had chosen a different cryptocurrency, but still leverage the Electroneum brand, as part of our strategy for brand dominance and growth.
There’s bound to be a ton of questions and there’s bound to be a lot of people trying to claim that this can’t happen or it doesn’t exist – but I assure you that the patent is filed (patent app. Number 1805708.3) and Dentons are confident of our claims, and we are going to deliver everything we’ve said we will. This single jurisdiction patent application protects the idea we apply for global patents.
It covers a number of other things too, that we’ve discovered by being the first people to ever handle this volume of cryptocurrency users in a hybrid app. Since we’ve found solutions for a lot of the problems, we’ve patented the techniques to give Electroneum the intellectual property rights, enabling us to protect the process, or even earn royalties from their use elsewhere.
One of the phrases we heard last year speaking to one of the large vendors we are in discussion with was “Where is your moat?”. What they meant by this is what is to stop someone else coming along and offering the same thing. What protects the Electroneum business model (other than our massive first mover advantage)? This patent is exactly what they were after. If gives them a reason to publicly endorse us as a fintech partner, because we are following the corporate path.
We are now protected. No new ICO can think “great idea” and take it, as it’s protected by global patent laws.
Faster growth than Twitter & Facebook - a positive thought to finish on. In amongst some of the negativity recently I thought – “hey! There’s another thing I’d like to point out to detractors and those with only negative comments for ETN”. We are already up there with some of the greats. Think about it, we’ve already shown that we can grow faster than Twitter, Facebook and Dropbox (we hit 1m users after 5 months of being live – Twitter took 2 years, Facebook 10 months and Dropbox 7 months).
Now think what we can do with a global patent that enables us to transact any cryptocurrency instantly into any shop or ecommerce system, coupled with a method to introduce new users to cryptocurrency in their millions.
I hope you are as excited about the future as I am.
Don’t worry about the future of Electroneum, we are building strong foundations to ensure we deliver what we’ve always promised. Cryptocurrency mass adoption. It’s coming…
As always, I wish you all health, happiness and a wonderful weekend
Richard Ells Electroneum Founder
submitted by Xlimxlim to Electroneum [link] [comments]

What We Need to Know about Proof of Work (PoW)

We've had a lot of discussion of PoW and ASIC-resistance over the past couple months. I wanted to consolidate it all into one place for easier review.
The CryptoNote developers explicitly talked about this in the CryptoNote white paper. (In short, it's bad for network security if cheap ASICs exist that are more powerful than GPUs and high end CPUs.) Writing in 2013, it was already obvious that Bitcoin's SHA256 PoW was broken. They designed CryptoNight to address shortcomings in Bitcoin's PoW algorithm but unfortunately, as time has revealed, their analysis of why Bitcoin's PoW is weak and what makes a good PoW algorithm fell short.
The fundamental flaw that these guys all overlooked is that Proof of Work involves two distinct elements and both Bitcoin and CryptoNote tried to address both requirements with a single algorithm. I.e., there is the actual work that must be done, and there is the proof that the work was performed. Both Bitcoin and CryptoNote used cryptographic hashes to address both requirements, but cryptohashes are only good for proof - they're used in digital signatures to verify that some piece of data is authentic. But that's all they're good for.
Cryptographic hashes are intentionally designed to be efficient to implement and fast to execute. They're designed to be lightweight and high throughput. But the Work you need to secure a network must be hard. Cryptographic hashes are trivially easy to implement in hardware because they use a simple set of operations, sequenced in a straightforward order. They're the ideal algorithms for ASIC implementation.
People overlook this aspect of hardness all the time. They think "Bitcoin is secured by trillions of hashes/sec, so of course it's secure" - but that's not automatically true. Work is what secures the network, and that means energy - electrical energy, in this case. The hash rate is only a proxy for work, and it's a poor one at best. E.g. if you have a network secured by 1 trillion SHA256 hashes/sec at a cost of 1 microwatt per hash or a network secured by 10 billion Argon2 hashes/sec at a cost of 1 watt per hash, the Argon2 network is actually more secure.
A viable PoW algorithm has to be computationally hard. Not just "memory hard" as CryptoNight claimed - memory densities double every 18 months. But transistor speeds have flatlined. So this is the first hint - you need something that's actually difficult to compute. Cryptohashes are easy to compute; they're intentionally designed to be easy.
ASICs and GPUs outrun CPUs because they have hundreds or thousands of small/simple compute nodes running in parallel. The more complicated the computation, the larger a compute node you need to successfully execute it - which means, the more expensive the ASIC, and the fewer compute nodes can fit on a chip. So again, we're aiming for computational complexity. More to the point - we're aiming for algorithms that leverage the general-purpose design of CPUs.
ASICs are fast because they're hardwired to do a single task. CPUs are slow because they're general purpose - instead of being hardwired for any particular function, they read and interpret a list of instructions that tell them which function to perform. So the obvious way to put the brakes on ASICs is to force them to do more than a single task.
A few multi-algorithm PoW systems have already been designed - they all still fail because the individual algorithms are still cryptohashes, and each one is still easy to implement. If your PoW uses 12 different hash algorithms, big deal, they just design an ASIC with all 12 algorithms on-chip.
The way forward as I see it is to use a PoW with completely randomly generated code, so that it's impossible for an ASIC to hardwire all of the algorithms. At that point the ASIC folks will be required to build an actual CPU into their chips. And that will bring their speed back down to earth.
Note that their on-chip CPU still doesn't need to be as full-featured as a regular CPU, and the simpler they can make it, the cheaper it is to build and the faster it will run. So it's important that the randomly generated code is also inherently complex, using a wide variety of operations and data types. It's also important that the code uses a stable and mature programming language. Something that's too new and experimental may have many holes waiting to be discovered, or unexpected optimizations that allow some implementations to have unfair advantage.
The PRNG used to randomize the code needs to be of high quality, so that it doesn't frequently produce repeated sequences. Anything that occurs frequently can be condensed into a hardware circuit.
My approach, based on this knowledge, is to generate random Javascript. The PRNG I've used is an optimized variant of Mersenne Twister. This PRNG is not a cryptographically secure generator but it doesn't need to be. On the other hand, it has been heavily studied and heavily optimized over many years so it's unlikely for anyone to develop any shortcuts in implementing it.
I've chosen to use Javascript because it's a mature language and there are a number of competing Javascript engines out there, all heavily optimized. The likelihood of significant new optimizations being discovered is low. (And there's a side-benefit - if anyone does discover a new optimization, it may benefit the entire computing community.)
A running proof of concept is available on my github page github.com/hyc/randprog
The blockhashing blob + nonce are fed in as the seed that initializes the PRNG. (Just like in CryptoNight, it's first run thru Keccak, to ensure the bits of the nonce are evenly distributed across the seed.) The source code of the generated program, as well as the output of the generated program, are crunched with Keccak and one of 4 randomly selected hash algorithms (Blake256, Groestl, JH, and Skein) just like CryptoNight. Using the cryptohashes proves that a piece of work is authentic - the hashes will not match if the wrong source code was generated, or it wasn't executed correctly. But aside from proving authenticity, the cryptohashes play no other role.
Kudos to conniedoit for making the initial suggestion that led down this path. https://www.reddit.com/Monero/comments/84y3ci/help_new_funky_pow_idea_against_asics_and_for_the/
submitted by hyc_symas to Monero [link] [comments]

Bitmain asicboost has been public since July 2016. What's the big deal?

A bitmain patent was published in January 2016 and the dormant capability was observed in July 2016. Nevertheless, nullc saw the need to “reverse engineer” a mining ASIC from a “major manufacturer”(At least a $100K value well beyond his advertised skill set) to confirm what he could have figured out from a Google search. I guess his intent was to show that the supposedly dormant capability could theoretically be used in a “covert” way that would be hard to detect on the blockchain. The software that ships with Bitmain miners only allows easily-detectable “overt” use, but it is not surprising to me that the chip design would be agnostic to overt/covert use.
Whether or not the covert variant is actually used, and whether or not it could be made truly undetectable, is still being researched. No one has shown me a satisfying proof either way yet. The simplest explanation is that Bitmain made their chips asicboost-ready in the hopes that patent license agreements and a BIP could later allow overt use. This is, after all, an efficiency improvement that would help secure the blockchain. But it's true that a pirate might be able to use their equipment for covert patent-defying asicboost and make money at it, just like he might use a tape recorder to pirate and sell music. Is this a problem?
Asicboost is compatible with the planned protocol upgrades I care about: bigger blocks, thin blocks, and flexible transactions. It is incompatible with a several protocol upgrades promoted by Core: segwit, weak blocks, committed bloom filters, committed address indexes, most kinds of fraud proofs. So if Core improvements prevail, asicboost efficiency improvements become obsolete. Conversely, if asicboost becomes entrenched, either by overt use or piracy, those Core proposals become obsolete.
So what? It's normal for the build up of legacy infrastructure to gradually calcify standards and make them difficult to change. If Core's projects are so fragile, it suggests to me that Core is bad at writing maximally compatible code. If asicboost gives miners or manufacturers an extra economic incentive to shut out Core, that's a feature to me, not a bug.
submitted by ytrottier to btc [link] [comments]

[2016 Chinese Article Translated] A Vital Force in the Blockchain World, They Are Developing Something that Will Help an Enterprise Like Alibaba

Hi Vechain Community,
As I said before, I think building a great community together actually matters a lot to ourselves and the hardworking folks at Vechain. So I found an article about Vechain that I thought was fairly well written which has some information that's not here. It's mostly about the early history of Vechain. The title includes Alibaba but don't be misguided they are not partners. I've just carried it from the original. Please point out and provide feedbacks to what other translations you would like to see. I'm not a journalists nor an excellent writer. But I'm happy to help.
Source: *https://www.leiphone.com/news/201610/FkCHnvT80RSIGSgG.html *Time: 2016-10-21 18:56
Vechain is a Shanghai-based company, focusing on solving the counterfeit problems for luxury goods, they are currently focusing on providing a supply chain solution which can prove a source of authenticity for products in the real world. Users can easily find out about the information and the history of products through Vechain.
The Beginning of the Story
Every story starts with an ideology, and this ideology is pursued with romantic heroism.
CEO of BitSE and Vechain, Chandler Jun, has been working in blockchain industry for about 3 years, He’s spent 12 years in IBM and in his own words, “I’ve never thought about leaving, until the moment I saw blockchain.”
CTO, Shuai Chu, to this date has become a renown figure in the blockchain community, has received his PHD in Computer Science from Chinese Academy of Sciences. In 2013, He left Alibaba due to his first encounter with bitcoin. Now he’s accumulated 5 years of blockchain R&D under his belt.
After 7 months of working as a CTO in Louis Vuitton, Sunny Lu left his jobs and joined the other two idol-level friends to start Vechain, taking on COO of Vechain (now CEO). At the time, many friends and business partners came up to him and challenged him, “Why are you leaving your jobs for some gaming coins?” — in 2017, Sunny Lu received a promotional e-mail from Bitcoin, in the beginning, he was simply wondering the difference between bitcoin and QQ coin, but then he embarks on a journey of cryptography, mathematics and his own business, with no intention of looking back.
No one can fight against the time, the futurologists say people overestimate what the future is going to be, but also do not underestimate what could happen in a short span of 3 years. The question to Sunny was, how can they take on this groundbreaking technology, along with their ideologies for the a better world, to implement the changes in reality.
The Recruitment of Blockchain Army
In the Anding district of Shanghai, sits an old building that catches no one’s eye, is where BitSe (Vechain’s parent company) located. If you walk up to the office, you will meet a bunch of world class engineers who graduated from Colombia. Just when you enter the door, you can also pet the Allah Chomsky dog who is just hanging in the office.
“Most of our engineers are located in Europe, a few of them in Shanghai, and the rest works from home.” says the CTO Shuai Chu, Vechain’s engineers are located from Morocco, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Russia, and Canada. We have meetings in Europe once in a while.
“There are just not enough blockchain talents here in China. Also, people who have the knowledge of traditional industry are just too hard to find! We had to recruit globally through the Internet.” says Sunny Lu. Recruitment was a very difficult period. In the beginning, “As long as you understand Blockchain. I will hire you!”, “But now we are recruiting much more specifically, we want people who understand smart contract and have certain domain industry.”
It was a period of barrenness, all we had was imagination and vision.
Many of the angel investors from Uber and Airbnb were asking: “Why did this people join you?” Sunny Lu answers: “I think engineers are the same as business people, they only join the people who they respect, and they also crave for respect from their employers. The best only want to work with the best. For example, one of the Canadian engineer on the tam, is a very well-respected engineer in the field.”
Despite such common sense, it was still a difficult time since Europe’s blockchain development is behind the world by a year. “What the Europeans were talking about now is something we used to talked about a year ago.” says Sunny. However, we were able to overcome such obstacles and Vechain’s competitive advantage comes from being use case focused. We focus on industry adoption, not mathematical theories and technical development. We are already collaborating with PwC, fashion brand like BabyGhost, and airline logistic companies, signing deals in which we provide BAAS (Blockchain as a Service).
Mining, Currency Speculation, and Applications
In 2014 September, Silicon Valley and Wall street was going crazy with FinTech, and Blockchain’s waves were also starting to rise at the time.
Ever since Blockchain became popular in 2015, according to statistics, there are 60 industries trying to explore and understand how they should navigate blockchain, attracting more than 10 billions dollars of investment. People call it the next Internet, with a high probability to reconstruct and improve the current world structure.
In 2013, BitSe enters the field of Cryptography, “We started with mining services for bitcoin, we’ve started designing chips (ASIC), mining pools, and some blockchain browser services.” says Chandlers Jun.
In the blockchain industry, the majority of the people only care about price speculation and mining, no one really cares about technology development. Our voices were not heard in the crowd at the time.
“But have you ever thought about the low level development will be getting so much attention as of today?” asked the reporter.
“I actually have, bitcoin’s design philosophy is very cleverly thought. But I bet most of the people did not see this coming.” Says Chandler Jun. We can see Chandler’s high involvement in cryptocurrency from the 10,000 blog posts he has written, and the manual “Building Yourself from 0 to 1 in Blockchain” he has published.
“Starting in 2015, we have attempted many use cases and directions of blockchain, including ICOs, gaming, distributed web, and we’ve even helped non-profit organization to record their cashflows on blockchain ledgers. But right now, we’ve decided to focus on Vechain, an enterprise solution platform.” says Chandler Jun. “Why do you focus on the supply chain industry while blockchain’s value is initially discovered in Finance?” Reporter asked. “Regulations are very slow and heavy in the finance industry, we’ve made several attempts. But the cost of failure is too high. We’ve chosen an industry with less regulatory risks to start with and we’ve identify very practical use cases of blockchain. So this is where we decided to start.”
‘’And of course, we had to work with our resource constraint.” says Sunny Lu, whose fashion industry background highly influence the homepage of Vechain.
When recalling how they got involved in the fashion industry, Sunny Lu says “In 2015, they have organized a 2 day workshop with many executives from the high-end brands to educate them about blockchain and also to understand what’s their current predicament due to technical constraint. We then reached consensus that blockchain can help solving the counterfeiting problem as well as building a better customer relationship and feedback loop.”
“The brands and the manufacturers care the most about their buyers. But their problems are, the sold products are currently like the spilled water. You have no idea where and who your customers are, and you can’t establish a communication channel. When someone brought an LV, Channel, or Hermes bags, the customers are not able to tell you whether the bag is fake. No one can tell you, no services is provided right now.” says Chandler Jun.
“Due to the lack of data, the upstream and the downstream can’t coordinate and work together. But with blockchain, every luxury item can have an immutable identity, everyone in the world can understand the item by accessing its history, including quality management process, its fabrics, manufactures, and many more. We believe this is a much better experiences of buying a high-end product. However, we never expect there to be no fakes on the market. It’s impossible”. says Chandler Jun.
Horse Speed
It’s hard to not think about Alibaba when we talk about fakes. “Alibaba has been explore blockchain, I’ve even talked to someone who works there, but we are too small now, we need to focus on making our products great at this moment.” says Chandler Jun. “I think the most challenging part is timing, we need to be fast. There is no competitor now, but we still need to run as fast as we can.”
Besides counterfeiting, Vechain also is exploring resource management and large scale supply chain solution. There are so many stories of Vechain that we can talk about, but right now the focus is to expand the scale of the products. All the engineers and business partners are working as hard as they can on a daily basis, so such technology can become a reality and a real world application.
submitted by dandanbang to Vechain [link] [comments]

Decred Journal — June 2018

Note: You can read this on GitHub, Medium or old Reddit to see the 207 links.

Development

The biggest announcement of the month was the new kind of decentralized exchange proposed by @jy-p of Company 0. The Community Discussions section considers the stakeholders' response.
dcrd: Peer management and connectivity improvements. Some work for improved sighash algo. A new optimization that gives 3-4x faster serving of headers, which is great for SPV. This was another step towards multipeer parallel downloads – check this issue for a clear overview of progress and planned work for next months (and some engineering delight). As usual, codebase cleanup, improvements to error handling, test infrastructure and test coverage.
Decrediton: work towards watching only wallets, lots of bugfixes and visual design improvements. Preliminary work to integrate SPV has begun.
Politeia is live on testnet! Useful links: announcement, introduction, command line voting example, example proposal with some votes, mini-guide how to compose a proposal.
Trezor: Decred appeared in the firmware update and on Trezor website, currently for testnet only. Next steps are mainnet support and integration in wallets. For the progress of Decrediton support you can track this meta issue.
dcrdata: Continued work on Insight API support, see this meta issue for progress overview. It is important for integrations due to its popularity. Ongoing work to add charts. A big database change to improve sorting on the Address page was merged and bumped version to 3.0. Work to visualize agenda voting continues.
Ticket splitting: 11-way ticket split from last month has voted (transaction).
Ethereum support in atomicswap is progressing and welcomes more eyeballs.
decred.org: revamped Press page with dozens of added articles, and a shiny new Roadmap page.
decredinfo.com: a new Decred dashboard by lte13. Reddit announcement here.
Dev activity stats for June: 245 active PRs, 184 master commits, 25,973 added and 13,575 deleted lines spread across 8 repositories. Contributions came from 2 to 10 developers per repository. (chart)

Network

Hashrate: growth continues, the month started at 15 and ended at 44 PH/s with some wild 30% swings on the way. The peak was 53.9 PH/s.
F2Pool was the leader varying between 36% and 59% hashrate, followed by coinmine.pl holding between 18% and 29%. In response to concerns about its hashrate share, F2Pool made a statement that they will consider measures like rising the fees to prevent growing to 51%.
Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 94.7 DCR (+3.4). The price was steadily rising from 90.7 to 95.8 peaking at 98.1. Locked DCR grew from 3.68 to 3.81 million DCR, the highest value was 3.83 million corresponding to 47.87% of supply (+0.7% from previous peak).
Nodes: there are 240 public listening and 115 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 57% on v1.2.0 (+12%), 25% on v1.1.2 (-13%), 14% on v1.1.0 (-1%). Note: the reported count of non-listening nodes has dropped significantly due to data reset at decred.eu. It will take some time before the crawler collects more data. On top of that, there is no way to exactly count non-listening nodes. To illustrate, an alternative data source, charts.dcr.farm showed 690 reachable nodes on Jul 1.
Extraordinary event: 247361 and 247362 were two nearly full blocks. Normally blocks are 10-20 KiB, but these blocks were 374 KiB (max is 384 KiB).

ASICs

Update from Obelisk: shipping is expected in first half of July and there is non-zero chance to meet hashrate target.
Another Chinese ASIC spotted on the web: Flying Fish D18 with 340 GH/s at 180 W costing 2,200 CNY (~340 USD). (asicok.comtranslated, also on asicminervalue)
dcrASIC team posted a farewell letter. Despite having an awesome 16 nm chip design, they decided to stop the project citing the saturated mining ecosystem and low profitability for their potential customers.

Integrations

bepool.org is a new mining pool spotted on dcred.eu.
Exchange integrations:
Two OTC trading desks are now shown on decred.org exchanges page.
BitPro payment gateway added Decred and posted on Reddit. Notably, it is fully functional without javascript or cookies and does not ask for name or email, among other features.
Guarda Wallet integrated Decred. Currently only in their web wallet, but more may come in future. Notable feature is "DCR purchase with a bank card". See more details in their post or ask their representative on Reddit. Important: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.

Adoption

Merchants:
BlueYard Capital announced investment in Decred and the intent to be long term supporters and to actively participate in the network's governance. In an overview post they stressed core values of the project:
There are a few other remarkable characteristics that are a testament to the DNA of the team behind Decred: there was no sale of DCR to investors, no venture funding, and no payment to exchanges to be listed – underscoring that the Decred team and contributors are all about doing the right thing for long term (as manifested in their constitution for the project).
The most encouraging thing we can see is both the quality and quantity of high calibre developers flocking to the project, in addition to a vibrant community attaching their identity to the project.
The company will be hosting an event in Berlin, see Events below.
Arbitrade is now mining Decred.

Events

Attended:
Upcoming:

Media

stakey.club: a new website by @mm:
Hey guys! I'd like to share with you my latest adventure: Stakey Club, hosted at stakey.club, is a website dedicated to Decred. I posted a few articles in Brazilian Portuguese and in English. I also translated to Portuguese some posts from the Decred Blog. I hope you like it! (slack)
@morphymore translated Placeholder's Decred Investment Thesis and Richard Red's write-up on Politeia to Chinese, while @DZ translated Decred Roadmap 2018 to Italian and Russian, and A New Kind of DEX to Italian and Russian.
Second iteration of Chinese ratings released. Compared to the first issue, Decred dropped from 26 to 29 while Bitcoin fell from 13 to 17. We (the authors) restrain ourselves commenting on this one.
Videos:
Audio:
Featured articles:
Articles:

Community Discussions

Community stats: Twitter followers 40,209 (+1,091), Reddit subscribers 8,410 (+243), Slack users 5,830 (+172), GitHub 392 stars and 918 forks of dcrd repository.
An update on our communication systems:
Jake Yocom-Piatt did an AMA on CryptoTechnology, a forum for serious crypto tech discussion. Some topics covered were Decred attack cost and resistance, voting policies, smart contracts, SPV security, DAO and DPoS.
A new kind of DEX was the subject of an extensive discussion in #general, #random, #trading channels as well as Reddit. New channel #thedex was created and attracted more than 100 people.
A frequent and fair question is how the DEX would benefit Decred. @lukebp has put it well:
Projects like these help Decred attract talent. Typically, the people that are the best at what they do aren’t driven solely by money. They want to work on interesting projects that they believe in with other talented individuals. Launching a DEX that has no trading fees, no requirement to buy a 3rd party token (including Decred), and that cuts out all middlemen is a clear demonstration of the ethos that Decred was founded on. It helps us get our name out there and attract the type of people that believe in the same mission that we do. (slack)
Another concern that it will slow down other projects was addressed by @davecgh:
The intent is for an external team to take up the mantle and build it, so it won't have any bearing on the current c0 roadmap. The important thing to keep in mind is that the goal of Decred is to have a bunch of independent teams on working on different things. (slack)
A chat about Decred fork resistance started on Twitter and continued in #trading. Community members continue to discuss the finer points of Decred's hybrid system, bringing new users up to speed and answering their questions. The key takeaway from this chat is that the Decred chain is impossible to advance without votes, and to get around that the forker needs to change the protocol in a way that would make it clearly not Decred.
"Against community governance" article was discussed on Reddit and #governance.
"The Downside of Democracy (and What it Means for Blockchain Governance)" was another article arguing against on-chain governance, discussed here.
Reddit recap: mining rig shops discussion; how centralized is Politeia; controversial debate on photos of models that yielded useful discussion on our marketing approach; analysis of a drop in number of transactions; concerns regarding project bus factor, removing central authorities, advertising and full node count – received detailed responses; an argument by insette for maximizing aggregate tx fees; coordinating network upgrades; a new "Why Decred?" thread; a question about quantum resistance with a detailed answer and a recap of current status of quantum resistant algorithms.
Chats recap: Programmatic Proof-of-Work (ProgPoW) discussion; possible hashrate of Blake-256 miners is at least ~30% higher than SHA-256d; how Decred is not vulnerable to SPV leaf/node attack.

Markets

DCR opened the month at ~$93, reached monthly high of $110, gradually dropped to the low of $58 and closed at $67. In BTC terms it was 0.0125 -> 0.0150 -> 0.0098 -> 0.0105. The downturn coincided with a global decline across the whole crypto market.
In the middle of the month Decred was noticed to be #1 in onchainfx "% down from ATH" chart and on this chart by @CoinzTrader. Towards the end of the month it dropped to #3.

Relevant External

Obelisk announced Launchpad service. The idea is to work with coin developers to design a custom, ASIC-friendly PoW algorithm together with a first batch of ASICs and distribute them among the community.
Equihash-based ZenCash was hit by a double spend attack that led to a loss of $450,000 by the exchange which was targeted.
Almost one year after collecting funds, Tezos announced a surprise identification procedure to claim tokens (non-javascript version).
A hacker broke into Syscoin's GitHub account and implanted malware stealing passwords and private keys into Windows binaries. This is a painful reminder for everybody to verify binaries after download.
Circle announced new asset listing framework for Poloniex. Relevant to recent discussions of exchange listing bribery:
Please note: we will not accept any kind of payment to list an asset.
Bithumb got hacked with a $30 m loss.
Zcash organized Zcon0, an event in Canada that focused on privacy tech and governance. An interesting insight from Keynote Panel on governance: "There is no such thing as on-chain governance".
Microsoft acquired GitHub. There was some debate about whether it is a reason to look into alternative solutions like GitLab right now. It is always a good idea to have a local copy of Decred source code, just in case.
Status update from @sumiflow on correcting DCR supply on various sites:
To begin with, none of the below sites were showing the correct supply or market cap for Decred but we've made some progress. coingecko.com, coinlib.io, cryptocompare.com, livecoinwatch.com, worldcoinindex.com - corrected! cryptoindex.co, onchainfx.com - awaiting fix coinmarketcap.com - refused to fix because devs have coins too? (slack)

About This Issue

This is the third issue of Decred Journal after April and May.
Most information from third parties is relayed directly from source after a minimal sanity check. The authors of Decred Journal have no ability to verify all claims. Please beware of scams and do your own research.
The new public Matrix logs look promising and we hope to transition from Slack links to Matrix links. In the meantime, the way to read Slack links is explained in the previous issue.
As usual, any feedback is appreciated: please comment on Reddit, GitHub or #writers_room. Contributions are welcome too, anything from initial collection to final review to translations.
Credits (Slack names, alphabetical order): bee and Richard-Red. Special thanks to @Haon for bringing May 2018 issue to medium.
submitted by jet_user to decred [link] [comments]

Alpha Technology Scrypt ASIC Chip POC Video BitcoinOrama - KnCMiner - The World's First 28 ASIC Chip Soldering a Bitfury ASIC QFN / MLF chip to a 4 layer quikfury bitcoin mining PCB Bitfury 16nm ASIC Demo - Part 2 of 3

Search for jobs related to Design asic chip mining or hire on the world's largest freelancing marketplace with 18m+ jobs. It's free to sign up and bid on jobs. Bitmain’s BM1387 chip is built using TSMC’s 16nm FinFET technology and, delivering a record-breaking 0.098 J/GHs, is the world’s most efficient bitcoin mining chip in the consumer market. The R4 is so efficient because it uses the 126 of Bitmain’s new BM1387 ASIC Chips, which are 16nm chips. Looking for someone who can, build asic chip design so will mine crypto based on ETH. Habilidades: Diseño industrial, ASIC, Ingeniería, Criptografía Ver más: start asic vlsi design, fpga rs232 testing asic chip start asic vlsi design They are not standard SHA256 cores, bitcoin mining requires a double nested round of SHA256 for the word message, there are some design optimizations in the chip for sure, like better pipelining and definitely a working design of a custom, not standard implementation of a SHA256 core. While it may turn easy to just reproduce them without much troubles because of their supposed simplicity, i ... So, when I say “build your own ASIC,” I’m not suggesting that you start designing your own monolithic chip. If you need a lot of them this may be worthwhile, but systems that require less than 10,000 pieces rarely benefit from such an approach. Field programmable analog arrays (FPAA) are sometimes useful for subsystems that use large numbers of op amps, but are rarely cost-effective for ...

[index] [5385] [34107] [33149] [19197] [19316] [16495] [11736] [44964] [43467] [44221]

Alpha Technology Scrypt ASIC Chip POC Video

This video demonstrates soldering QFN chip to a 4 layer board (qikfury board). The chip shown is a Bitfury 5GHash bitcoin mining ASIC chip (hashes at 2-2.5GH/s). It is soldered using reflow ... This is the second video of our 3 video series about our new 16nm Bitcoin Mining ASIC. In this video we demonstrate the high power performance of the chip with the help of a heat sink. The demonstration is by one of our engineers from our engineering partners in India, Dexcel Designs. The video demonstrates our ASIC design and core speeds working live. The ASIC design document ... The next video is starting stop. Loading... Watch Queue

#