BitFury Says 16 nm ASIC Testing Successful, Mass ...

FIGHTING FUD: Bitmain's IPO to the US raising more than $1 billion

Bitmain's IPO to the US is coming soon, raising more than $1 billion: core financial data exposure

Key Points:
Chinese Article HERE.
In June of this year, Bloomberg broke the news that Bitmain has started IPO matters in the United States, and will submit a prospectus application by the end of July at the erliest. Today, in July, there are still no public offering documents on Bitmain.
But another mining machine manufacturer, Jia Nan Zhizhi, has secretly submitted a listing application to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (details: Jia Nan, the world's second-largest bitcoin mining machine manufacturer, has secretly submitted a listing application to the SEC).
However, Uncle C recently got the latest financial information from Bitmain, and may share some of the core data with you.
On September 26, 2018, Bitmain submitted a prospectus application document to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The document shows that the two founders, Jank Group and Wu Jihan, are major shareholders, holding 36% and 20% respectively.
Since its inception, Bitmain has mainly obtained three rounds of financing, which took place in August 2017, June 2018 and August 2018. Among them, Bitmain completed more than $700 million in financing in the second half of 2018.
At the time of the release of the prospectus, the proportion of shares held by major investment institutions was small: Sequoia Capital held approximately 3.14%, Innovation Works held approximately 1.13%, Temasek held 0.35%, IDG Capital and Beijing IC Industry The International Fund holds 0.02% and 0.07% of the shares respectively.
Valuation of Bitmain to $13 billion -$15 billion US dollars
The above-mentioned investors gave the information that Bitmain tried to raise $1 billion to $1.5 billion in the estimated IPO of $13 billion to $15 billion .
If the valuation is true, it will increase slightly from the valuation of around US$12 billion in the second half of 2018, and will be much higher than the “only” 500 given by the Hurun Greater China Unicorn Index in January this year. The valuation of 100 million yuan, although Bitmain ranked 11th in this list.
It is clear that the financial data of Bitmain is re-optimized. Uncle C also got the financial statements of Q1 Bitmain in China this year.
March profit of $315 million
In the first quarter of 2019, Bitmain's total operating income was US$1.082 billion, of which revenues for the first three months were 253 million, 253 million and 579 million , respectively ; gross margins were 7.91 million, 14.7 million and 25.21 million respectively. The US dollar; net profit reached $315 million in March alone, and $345 million and $280 million in losses in January and February, respectively.
From the perspective of net profit and gross profit, the data is obviously not so satisfactory. To this end, Bitcoin’s internal view is that in the first quarter, mainly in clearing inventory, especially at low prices, 16nm mining machine inventory, resulting in lower gross profit margin; after the completion of the old product clearance, sales of 7nm mining machine new products Will lead to an increase in gross profit margin, and the gross profit margin in April is expected to reach 30%.
It is expected that the fourth quarter will usher in an outbreak
In addition, given that the mining machine belongs to futures products and has placed 200 million 7nm chips in TSMC, Bitmain expects earnings to achieve explosive growth in Q4.
For the new 7nm mining machine, Bitmain's internal view said that the concept of the 7nm mining machine was proposed in 2018 and is currently done in China and Japan; Bitmain is the only 7nm mine with mass production and delivery capabilities. Machine manufacturers.
Here, Uncle C feels that it is advisable to make an intuitive comparison with the prospectus. According to the prospectus, the revenue, gross profit and after-tax profit of Bitcoin in 2017 were 274 million, 134 million and 83 million US dollars respectively; while the full year 2017 revenue, gross profit and after-tax profit were 2.518 billion, 12.13 respectively. Billion and $701 million. From this data, the main source of contribution to the annual income is obviously dependent on the performance in the second half .
Therefore, Bitmain's sales forecast for the whole year is that Q3's cash flow will be stronger due to the customer's prepaid mining machine, but because of the small inventory, TSMC needs 3 to 4 months to produce, so Q4 will be the main issue. The time node for goods and revenue recognition.
In addition to the 7nm mining machine mentioned above, the AI ​​product line is also the direction of development of Bitcoin this year.
Uncle C has already mentioned it in the article in June this year (related links: the news that Bitcoin applied for listing in the US next month, previously announced by the Hong Kong Stock Exchange "death penalty"), Bitmain began to enter at the end of 2015 In the AI ​​field, R&D content includes AI chips, boards, servers, and various hardware and software products and customer development platforms. The main directions of the layout are security, campus, smart city, and Internet.
At present, Bitmain has launched three products equipped with the cloud chip BM1684. In the first quarter of this year, it has reached cooperation with China Unicom and China Mobile Hangzhou R&D Center . The revenue of Q1 is nearly 32 million yuan.
Bitmain has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of digital currency assets
In terms of balance sheet, C Uncle also got the data at the end of March and the end of May. As of the end of May, Bitmain's total assets were approximately $1 billion, and the company's debt ratio after excluding preferred shares was 16%.
In addition, Uncle C also received reflections and judgments on the IPO process within the Bitmain. Among them, the failure of Hong Kong's IPO, Bitmain China believes that the main reason is that the rapid decline in the currency price in a short period of time has led regulators to doubt the sustainability of their business.
It is worth mentioning that Bitmain has now decided that it has no choice but to enter the US.
Uncle C's point of view is that although Bitcoin currently has a market share of more than 70% in the digital currency mining machine market and has sufficient cash flow, the date of its official delivery must not wait too long .
After all, the only viable listings of the three miners are currently in the United States. Once Jianan Zhizhi and even Yibang International are leading the listing progress, the order of time in the same competition will follow the listing process and market performance. Has a non-negligible influence.
The ability of chip design is goal to enter the AI ​​field. Rapid financing to sufficient funds will also help Bitmain further develop its layout in the chip and AI fields. Bitmain even stated in the documents given to investors that its ultimate goal is to become a technology-based commercial company.
submitted by kilrcola to btc [link] [comments]

New Miners of the 21st Century: What Do They Look Like in Sichuan Province?

New Miners of the 21st Century: What Do They Look Like in Sichuan Province? submitted by 8btccom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

This Company Sets Out to Prove Crypto Mining Has a Place in Your Home

Hotmine, a company based in Ukraine which engineers home appliances for crypto enthusiasts, is not new to mining equipment development. But sometimes it takes the right time and the right technology to be able to create and offer solutions that consumers would be willing to buy and use. Thanks to tech progress and proper market conditions, cryptocurrency mining at your home is once again becoming an option to support your budget with some satoshis or save on utility bills.

Cryptocurrency mining has passed through different stages since the invention of Bitcoin and Oles Slobodenyuk, the owner of Hotmine, was willing to explain why he thinks that after a period of industrialization, the minting of digital coins can once again return to living rooms and garages. And it can not only bring households some additional crypto income but also heat air and water without affecting the noise comfort of a home.

Hotmine produced its first hashboards using 55nm chips and developed a system to utilize the thermal energy emitted by the hardware in September 2013. In October the same year, 10 hashboards with 12 chips each were capable of mining three bitcoins a day. A complete module had 80 hashboards and a total of 960 chips. This equipment was exploited for a few years until it was eventually replaced with a more productive hardware. Hotmine can change the hashboards, which act as the heating elements in its systems, with new ones based on 16nm, 10nm, and 7nm chips.

https://news.bitcoin.com/this-company-sets-out-to-prove-crypto-mining-has-a-place-in-your-home/
submitted by FastSellerService to BitcoinInfo [link] [comments]

Obelisk's Sia ASICs - Full Details

https://obelisk.tech
Sia is releasing a 28nm, full-custom ASIC. This ASIC will be a complete package, similar to an antminer. You will receive a mining box that includes chips, power supplies, etc. Minimal setup will be required to get the miner working.
The miner is in early development already. We have begun the process of chip design, hardware design, and supply chain management. We have had conversations with previous ASIC manufacturers, and we have been warned about delays, unexpected costs, and myriads of pitfalls that throw off estimations. For this reason, we have set a conservative shipping date of June 2018. If the miners are ready sooner, they will be shipped sooner. If all goes well (and it rarely does, especially for first time manufacturers), we could see the miners shipping before March 2018.
Following the presale, we will be posting a development roadmap on our website that includes all the major steps of development. We will be crossing off steps in the roadmap as we complete them, which will allow the community to follow our progress, have visibility into delays, and will be able to see the places where we are ahead of or behind schedule.
The estimated hashrate is 100 GH/s. We will not know the exact hashrate until later in the development process, however we have confidence that 100 GH/s is a low bar to hit. We may end up shipping miners with a much higher hashrate, and will continue updating the estimated hashrate as we get more accurate estimates for how the chips will perform. The estimated power draw is 500w, though it may be significantly less.
The price of the unit is going to be $2499. Chip manufacturing is expensive, supply chains are expensive, and there are a lot of single-time costs that go into making miners. Future batches will likely have lower prices, however they will also ship later.
We will be selling the miners for Bitcoin. We expect the sale volume to be very large (in the tens of millions of dollars), and we feared that the Sia cryptocurrency would not have enough liquidity to handle all of that volume, resulting in the price rising quickly as people scramble to buy Siacoin for the ASIC, and then the price falling quickly as we convert the Siacoin to USD. This is the worst of both worlds - participants buy the siacoin at a premium, and then we sell them at a discount. Bitcoin has much, much deeper liquidity, and we can sell large volume of Bitcoin quickly without moving the price too much.
We will be converting the Bitcoin to USD as fast as possible. If the price fluctuates by more than 5% before we are able to convert, we will need to request more coins to cover the difference, or cancel the order. If the price fluctuates upwards by more than 5% before we convert, we will return the difference.
The sale and shipment of ASICs on the Sia network is going to dramatically increase the hashrate. When considering how much revenue you may get from a unit, please take into account the fact that we are selling enough units to potentially 10x or 100x the difficulty. If another ASIC manufacturer decides to start selling Sia ASICs, the hashrate may go up by more than just the number of units we sell. Please also consider that the block reward is decreasing. Today, the block reward is about 189,000 siacoins per block. By June 2018, our ship date, the block reward is going to be closer to 135,000 siacoins per block, decreasing by 1 siacoin per block (or 4320 siacoins per month).
The presale will be open for 7 days. There is no rush - people who buy on the fourth day will receive the same treatment as people who buy on the first day. The sale will not close early, and while we reserve the right to deny purchases, we have chosen not to put a cap on the number of units sold. We may pre-sell additional batches before the first batch ships. The first batch will have priority when we begin shipping, and if the later batches will be shipping shortly after, those later batches will be sold at a higher price. People who buy in on the first batch will receive both price preference and shipping date preference as a reward for taking on the most risk.
Obelisk is the company that will be producing these chips. Obelisk is a fully owned subsidiary of Nebulous Inc. Nebulous is the company that employs all of the Sia core developers.
Obelisk has plans for growth in the future. None of these plans are finalized as we are primarily focusing on shipping this miner, but potential future products include:
Finally, we plan to introduce decentralized mining pools into the Sia ecosystem before we ship the miners. Hosts will have the option of running their own mining pool, and then miners can detect the hosts by checking the blockchain and the peer network, forming payment channel contracts with them and participating in fully decentralized mining. This should help alleviate the pool centralization that is seen in most PoW cryptocurrencies.
We are very excited about our new company, and hope that you share in our excitement. Feel free to ask any questions.
submitted by Taek42 to siacoin [link] [comments]

My response to the Dev Fork decision

Since I penned the original Community Fork proposal, I felt the need to address the decision to fork and the medium post attempting to justify the radical departure from what the community sought. The italics are quotes from the post, the following text is mine.

The first several statements are in regard to what happened in January.

The core developers ultimately decided against forking.
--
This statement sets the table by clearly laying out what happened in January with a statement the project is centralized as Nebulous went against the community in not forking then. The same holds true on today's statement.

Decentralization is valuable because there is nobody in control, and we weren’t comfortable releasing an update that threatened to rip the community in half.
--
In other words, we asserted control and made a highly centralized decision to protect the community. It is Orwellian in attempting to explain that war is peace.

ironically the people leaving in the largest droves were those who most aggressively opposed the fork during the earlier debates
--
Even if evidence existed to determine this, it's doubtful. The people most active against the fork were A3 purchasers and those people had ROI to meet. Even if they decided the Discord was a bit toxic, they still fulfilled a role securing the network. The author frequently makes assertions that cannot be defended with fact.

Sia’s biggest supporters and believers were the ones that got hit hardest by the mining catastrophe, and despite this loss, they were also the ones who stuck through the hardest times.
--
What did they lose? Obelisks wouldn't ship for another 9 months. How was it a catastrophe? Was the network ever at risk? The use of hyperbole here is indicative of the lack of a serious argument.

They (innosilicon) have the only 14nm miner on the market, and as such they have the only rig capable of competing. Without competition, there is no price pressure, and it seems that there is close to, if not above, a 100% markup on their hardware. For every machine that gets sold, Innosilicon makes enough profit to produce a machine for themselves to mine.
--
The suggestion is that a highly competent manufacturer fairly competing to create the best possible solution is somehow in the wrong. It then goes on to suggest that gaining a financial reward for being highly competent is somehow wrong and further intimates the profits must be reinvested into working the Sia chain. In fact, Innosilicon didn't have an overly large hashrate until the discussion of a fork seemed inevitable. It seems reasonable they dumped the totality of their inventory online because they would not be able to sell them once a fork occurred. Arguing against capitalism and the freedom to earn profits is a dangerous slope, perhaps revealing underlying political motivations of the author.

For an ASIC that is going to obsolete existing hardware, margins can be anywhere from 50% to 100%. The story is different however for ASICs that intend to compete without being strong enough to become the new monopoly. For these machines, margins are likely to be less than 25% because the presence of competition heavily forces prices downwards.
--
The argument here is to somehow seek to fight Moore's Law. Just as GPUs defeated CPUs and ASICs defeated GPUs, the strongest ASICs will prevail. There are several manufacturers that can be sought out to compete if the result is a single dominant model. More importantly, Innosilicon sells the majority of it's mining rigs to decentralize the hashrate. A single dominant manufacturer does not guarantee or even make more likely the hashrate will centralize. Finally, seeking to protect less than competent or financially competitive manufacturers runs counter to much of the Satoshi manifesto.

When a manufacturer is also a miner, there is an incentive against manufacturing and selling more machines.
--
The Bitmain financials clearly show the company makes the overwhelming amount of their profitability on miner sales, not mining. This is likely true for nearly all coins as mining quickly becomes close to breakeven. Even the author later admits the margins on hardware make for a lucrative business model.

High manufacturer diversity is currently limited by the extreme barriers to entry...we like to see manufacturers that share the knowledge and encourage a vibrant competitive environment.
--
In no industry that I am aware of is sharing of proprietary knowledge common and especially not in highly competitive and extremely capital intensive industries. It's beyond naive to believe this should be a goal. The post continues with other hurdles that no rational enterprise would accept without some sort of regulatory framework. It cannot be fairly policed as we are seeing here. The author has made several statements based on conjecture and formulated a punishment with the entities having no rights of appeal or even an advance guideline to follow that would have avoided the issues.

For the Sia network, an important line was crossed when secret ASIC projects superseded a public project that had substantial community investment.
--
This may be accurate to the author but such a line was never laid out for the public and as such, crossing it cannot be penalized unjustly.

Sia did not fork initially because there was a lot of confusion, a lot of emotion, and a great fear that the heavy conflicts of interest would cause the development team to make the wrong decision. Since then, there has been time for emotions to cool, for level heads to prevail, and for a second community fork proposal to come forward. Unlike the first fork proposal by the community, this second proposal experienced widespread support and virtually no opposition at all from regular members of the community.
--
This is accurate in stating the Community Fork proposal enjoyed widespread support. it is totally off base in suggesting the Dev Fork even resembles the CF. This is using the community as a human shield due to the overwhelming lack of an argument. My guess is that the Dev Fork would not meet with anything near the kind of support the CF enjoyed.

Sia is forking today to reprimand the current ASIC monopoly for the damage it did to the Sia community, to make whole the supporters of Sia’s community ASIC project, and to send a clear message to all future Sia ASIC manufacturers: we will not tolerate an abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Which is sort of a heavy handed way of saying there is one final boss at Sia and you made him mad to the point that he must now "reprimand" you. The items characterized as abusive were never outlined in advance and are highly debatable as to whether they actually are abusive, but again, Final Boss.

We fully expect that the 28nm Obelisk ASICs will be replaced by a 16nm chip from another manufacturer, who will become the new manufacturing monopoly for Sia... the Sia community is not afraid to take action a second time to break a parasitic or abusive ASIC monopoly.
--
Hopefully any manufacturer understands the shifting sands that exist within the Sia leadership could decide virtually any action to be harmful as there has been zero harm done up to now. There have been no attacks, no overt centralization and plenty of supporters own/mine with these company's devices.

Sia is an ungoverned blockchain. There is no built-in mechanism on the Sia network to change the consensus rules, and there is no mechanism in the software that the developers can use to force people to upgrade. The only way that Nebulous can encourage a fork is to release new code, and then encourage people to upgrade.
This leaves people with the opportunity to reject the upgrade, and to instead continue using the old software and the old blockchain. If enough people rally around the old software, there could be a network split, and Sia could divide into two blockchains, in the same way that Ethereum split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic, and in the same way that Bitcoin became Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash.
At Nebulous, we view these cryptocurrency splits as one of the most powerful innovations of the blockchain space. Under traditional governance structures, a single decision gets made and everyone has to live with that decision. But when the network is able to split, you can get solutions where two groups of people with incompatible demands can both get what they want.
We will be structuring the Sia hardfork code to enable a group of dissenters to easily split off and be on a separate blockchain where the hardfork was never implemented. The hardfork will be released as its own release, v1.3.6, where the only code updated is a handful of lines of code + tests required to implement the hardfork. The code will be implemented in a way that easily allows a dissenting group to remove the hardfork code and yet continue merging changes that are made to the primary Sia repo. So long as the siafund ownership is maintained on this fork, members of the dissenting community will be welcome in the Sia community, on the Sia discord, on the subreddit, and will be able to receive support and help directly from the Nebulous support staff.
Perhaps the most amazing thing about a potential Sia network split is that all users will be able to continue to use their current files that they have on Sia. Uploads and downloads will continue to work, no matter what side of the split you are on, and so long as the minority side of the split has enough hosts (50–80 is what most users will require), the repair mechanisms of the Sia network will be able to repair your files from across both networks and ensure that your files continue working into the future. If the minority side of the fork does not have enough hosts, users will have time (most users will have several weeks) after the split to download their files and find an alternative way to back them up.
--
These paragraphs are simply amazing. The author appears to be goading people resistant to his iron control over the project to continue the legacy chain. While this makes sense if you are simply building a protocol and have no interest in marketing and selling the tech to say, Fortune 1000 companies, it is a terrible message if you do plan to. You are seeking community schism, making a competitive environment for hosting when hosting is already horribly unprofitable and seeking to sow chaos in how the network evolves into the future. The logical approach would be to let dedicated foes seek out the info on their own if there is a desire to work the legacy chain, not encourage it. It continues to show the author, while a strong technologist is a weak business individual.

we like to see is low margins for miners and manufacturers. When there are high margins, at least one player (the benefactor of the high margins) is able to acquire hashrate more cheaply than everyone else, and therefore is able to more easily attack the network.
--
What is the evidence and argument here? That people with more money are more able to attack? People with large trust funds are equally likely to be more able to attack. High profit margins simply indicate a competent agency, nothing more.

ASIC manufacturers ultimately exist to serve the network, and specifically to protect the network against 51% attacks.
--
ASIC manufacturers exist to serve their customers, full stop. They have no role or responsibility to the network at all. Increasing a circle of responsibility to an entity with no control over how their products are used is silly.

Overall, I am disappointed the team chose to ignore the Community Fork proposal in order to run their own fork. But, this is a Nebulous project and ultimately they can do whatever they want. They cannot assert decentralization though and very little about this current action suggests there is a long term goal of decentralization. Decisions to exclude some faction today will most certainly arise down the road as the team concludes that certain storage customers or developers or vendors are unacceptable for various reasons. This hasn't even discussed the awkward part of the equation where Obelisk is owned by the author and stands to gain now and in the future when more powerful, 2nd gen ASICs can be created and no outside manufacturers wanting to risk losing on the Sia project.

The point of the post is to attempt to continue to get Mr. Vorick to recognize the issues with his sole governance of the Sia project. Even the most ill-willed posts from various authors have a goal of improving the project. It is hoped that at some point, Vorick will recognize his project is stronger with community participation, even to the point of going along with community desires sometimes even if it runs counter to his own desires. There is value in learning to negotiate. You learn what to give away and what is sacrosanct. In the end, the project will grow much stronger and there will be copious numbers of supporters ready to do battle against the hyper-competitive world of cloud storage.
submitted by FaustianAGI to siacoin [link] [comments]

Will crypto mining kill polar bears?

Bitcoin mining uses as much electricity as a small country. Many people hate it for this reason, its one of the more popular arguments against crypto currencies. Will crypto mining kill polar bears? I think not. I think it will help save polar bears. "Bear" with me.
Germany produces a significant part of its electricity from renewable energy: wind and solar. As we all know, these sources are intermittent and seasonal, as is demand. When the share of renewable energy in the overall energy mix becomes large enough, the result is inevitable: temporary and seasonal overcapacity. This isnt just theoretical, energy prices in germany and the UK where effectively negative last Christmas: http://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-power-germany-negative-electricity-cost-2017-12//?r=AU&IR=T
As explained in the above article, this isnt a rare freak occurrence, its expected and this will have to be become much more common if as a society, we want to transition away from fossil fuels. Because to do that we need (much) more renewable energy sources. A study I saw for Germany calculated they needed at least 89% more capacity, just to handle peak loads. But that also implies an incredible amount of overcapacity when demand isnt anywhere near peak, or when supply is above average due to favorable weather. Storing excess renewable electricity, in most places is very expensive and inefficient. So much so that its rarely even done. This is a major problem. Wind turbines are therefore feathered, solar panels turned off, excess electricity dumped in giant electrical heaters, offered for free or even offered at negative prices. Renewable energy may have become cheaper than other forms per KWH, but thats only if when you can sell all of your production. And its only true if the consumption occurs near the renewable energy source and not 100s or 1000s of kilometers further. Building capacity that can only be used 50% or even 10% of the time, or building infrastructure to store surplus electricity is still very expensive, as is transporting renewable energy over long distances.
I know what you're thinking. Mining wont help here, because mining intermittently is something that seems crazy today; miners keep their expensive machines on 24/7. But thats only because today, the overall cost structure of a (bitcoin) miner is heavily tilted towards hardware depreciation. Particularly for anyone paying retail prices for mining asics. This will change completely, because of two related reasons:
1) mining efficiency improvements will taper off.
Mining asics have been progressing extremely rapidly, from being based on CPUs and FPGA's, to using 20 year old obsolete 180nm process technology in the first asics, to state of the art 16nm chips today. This has resulted in at least a million fold improvement in efficiency in just a few years, which in turn lead to hardware investments that needed to be recovered in a few months or even weeks (!) before they were obsolete. Opportunity cost has been so high, that miners have literally chartered 747s to transport new mining equipment from the manufacturer in China to their datacenters in the US.
This cant and wont last. 12nm and 7nm asics are about to be produced, or are being produced now. It doesnt get better than that today, and it wont for many years to come. Moore's law is often cited to show efficiency will keep going up. That may be true, but until now the giant leaps we have seen had nothing to do with moore's law, which "only" predicts a doubling every 18 months. Moore's law is also hitting a brick wall (you cant scale transistors smaller than atoms), and only states that transistor density increases. Not that chips become more efficient or faster, which increasingly is no longer happening (new cpu's are getting more cores, but run at comparable speeds and comparable power consumption to previous generations).
What all this means is that these upcoming state of the art mining asics will remain competitive for many years, at least 3, possibly more than 5 years, and thus can be used and written off over that many years. But they will still consume electricity during all those years, shifting the overall costs from hardware to electricity.
2) Mining is still too profitable (for anyone making their own asics) and mining hardware is therefore still too expensive (for everyone else)
Miner hardware production rate simply hasnt yet been able to keep up with demand and soaring bitcoin prices. This leads to artificially low mining difficulty, making mining operationally profitable even with expensive electricity, and this also leads to exuberant hardware profit margins. You can see this easily, just look at the difficulty of bitcoin. When the price dropped by 70%, did you see a corresponding drop in difficulty? No, no drop at all, it just keeps growing exponentially. That only makes sense because we are not yet near saturation, or near marginal electricity costs for bitmain & Co. Its not worth it yet for them to turn off their miners. Its not even worth it yet for residential miners. Another piece of evidence for this, is bitmains estimated $4 billion profit. But mining is a zero sum game, over time, market forces will drive hardware prices and the mining itself to become only marginally profitable. We're clearly not close to that -yet. You might think so as a private miner, but thats only because you overpaid for your hardware.
Lets look at todays situation to get an idea. An Antminer S9 retails for $2300 and uses ~1300W at the wall. If you write off the hardware over a year, electricity and hardware costs balance out at an electricity price of $0.2/KWH. Anything below that, and hardware becomes the major cost. But how will that evolve?
As difficulty keeps going up, bitcoin mining revenue per asic will decline proportionally, until demand for mining asics will eventually taper off. To counter that, prices of asics will be lowered until they approach marginal production costs, which by my estimate is closer to $200 than $2000. Let say a 1300W S9 equivalent at that point gets sold at $400 leaving bitmain a healthy profit margin; that would mean each year a miner would spend 5x more on electricity than on hardware. Hardware will remain competitive for more than a single year though. Say you write it off over 3 years, now you're spending 15x more on electricity than on hardware. Intermittent mining like 50% of the time, but with free or virtually free electricity will become economical long before that.
By now, I will hopefully have convinced you of the viability of mining with intermittent excess renewable energy; intermittent mining with renewable energy will not only become viable, it will become the only way to do it profitably. Renewable energy at the source is already cheaper than any carbon burning source. Even in Quatar, they install solar plants because its cheaper than burning their own gas. Its transporting and storing the electricity that usually is the problem. Gas can easily be transported and stored. Wind and solar energy can not. And thats a massive problem for the industry. But mining doesnt need either. You can mine pretty much anywhere and anytime. All you need besides electricity, is a few containers and an internet connection for a solar plant or wind farm to monetize excess energy.
Moreover, mining is a zero sum game, a race to the bottom. As long as its profitable for green energy providers to deploy more hardware (which will be true as long as they can at least recover their hardware investment), difficulty will go up. Until it becomes unprofitable for anyone who has to pay for his electricity. No one gives oil, coal or gas away for free, so anyone depending on those sources of electricity, can not remain competitive. If bitcoin price were to go up so much, that there isnt enough renewable electricity production in the world to accommodate the hashrate, bitcoin miners will simply install more solar and wind farms. Not because of their ecological awareness, but because it makes the most financial sense. And during peak demand periods, why wouldnt they turn off the miners and sell their electricity to the grid for a premium?
Basically crypto mining would fund renewable energy development, and solve the exact problem laid out in the article linked above: provide overcapacity of renewable energy to handle grid peak loads, without needing any government funding or taxation on carbon based sources, without needing expensive and very inefficient energy storage. From the perspective of a green energy producer, energy storage, like a battery or hydrogen production, is just an expensive and intermediate step between producing electricity and getting paid for that electricity. Crypto mining will do the same thing, converting excess electricity in to cash, only much more efficiently.
TL:DR, deploying more renewable electricity overcapacity is both very expensive and very necessary if we want to save polar bears. Financing for these large scale green energy projects will either have to come from tax payer money to store or subsidise the largely unused excess electricity, or it will come from crypto mining. Market forces will drive crypto mining to use the cheapest energy. Renewable energy already is cheaper per KWH than carbon based power, and nothing is cheaper than excess and thus free (or negative value) renewable energy. Bitcoin mining's carbon foot print will therefore become ~zero. If you take in to account the effect of financing and subsidizing large scale renewable energy development that can also be used to supply the grid during peak demand periods, its carbon footprint will be hugely negative.
BTW, if you wonder what Blockchains LLC is going to do with 61K acres near Tesla's factory; my guess is solar plants and crypto mining. Expect to see renewable energy development and crypto mining to merge in to one single industry. Check out envion to get a glimpse of this future. Im not endorsing their token as an investment, I havent researched it at all, but the market they are going after is a very real one and its about to explode.
submitted by Vertigo722 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Did nullc reverse engineer a Bitmain ASIC to find boosting evidence? Probably not.

Very doubtful. I have been thinking about this for several hours now, it struck me odd in the initial "reveal" that nullc never provided evidence for his claims. So, there could be many reasons for this, one of which of course that there is no evidence and the whole maneuver is a bluff.
Nullc is known to be fairly paranoid, even recently accusing Joseph Poon of being a paid shill for Jihan/Bitmain and working behind the scen. So lets say Nullc gets it in his head that he is 100% convinced that Bitcoin is using ASIC boost, the best way to prove this would simply to do statistical anaylsis on blocks, which would be fairly simple to do, showing the difference in Bitmain blocks, them having more empty blocks or having the transactions ordered in such a way that is consistent with covert boost. So, it would be very accessible and within his grasp to make some block analysis project and go back in history over Bitmain's blocks, and find evidence of higher % of certain behavior. Also, this would be pretty good evidence to share with the community since it would be easy to show the data.
Never happened though, instead nullc claims to have "reverse engineered the hardware." Honestly, with modern ASIC and 16nm process, this task would be extremely difficult and likely way out of his knowledge scope and not conclusive. *At most,* he hired an outside company or team who specializes in this to reverse engineer it to prove his hunch.
However, in reality its probably more likely that he did nothing at all, and is just bluffing that he did, since he knows that for most people in /bitcoin (and probably here in /btc I hope to a lesser extent because of the reduced censorship), thinking is not a strong suit and they will just believe whatever they are told by their leader. So then he gets this narrative that "Jihan is cheating this is why he oppose SegWit," this is a pretty simply narrative that most people can understand and latch onto right away. Actually providing evidence is not needed, just the bluff itself is fine. Also, if Jihan/Bitmain is using Asicboost, then the "bluff" would smoke them out and possible force them into a confession or to embarrass themselves in a bad reaction.
So, I think most likely no "reverse engineering" of hardware was done at all, this whole thing was a manufactured bluff, that is why evidence wasn't given and that is why Jihan/Bitmain wasn't named specifically ... because if he did make this false accusation it would be libel and would be legally actionable.
Possibly Bitmain is using Asicboost, but its doubtful that it was discovered "reverse engineering" hardware. I believe its more likely that this is just more manufactured evidence to rile up /bitcoin since nullc knows most people do not evaluate or think too critically.
If there is evidence please show it nullc and stop making these circus shows. If you want convince people who are already skeptical you need to provide some good evidence and good analysis.
submitted by squarepush3r to btc [link] [comments]

Samsung Asic Production: Does Bitmain Have a Competitor? Samsung ASIC Production and Market Impact

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@jnem/samsung-asic-production-overview-does-bitmain-have-a-competitor
Samsung Asic Production: Does Bitmain Have a Competitor?
As many people know, BItmain currently has an effective monopoly on many parts of the ASIC market, with the most efficient Bitcoin miners being the S9. (There is the supposed Dragonmint 16T, but no one has seen that yet, so well see.) And seeing as how the S9 has been out for well over a year and a half, it seems that Bitmain would release the new supposed S11 anytime now. With the announcement of Samsung beginning production of ASIC chips, many have thought that a company of this size participating in ASIC production might knock Bitmain off their throne, but this isn’t the case.
Is Samsung Making ASICS?
The answer to this is no, Samsung, although becoming a producer of ASIC chips, will not directly produce ASIC miners. Samsung has only received orders from producers of ASICs for the production of the chips used in ASIC miners. Samsung has yet to clarify who ordered the chips, so it could be Bitmain or another ASIC manufacturer. Up till now, a Taiwanese company, TSMC, has been the main producer of the ASIC chips for miners.
When Will Production Begin?
It seems to have already started. In order to meet these orders, Samsung has specific “foundries” dedicated to the development of chips for external orders. These chips have been designed in order to strip all unnecessary functions and only leave hardware that is used in mining in order to both optimize hardware speed and electricity consumption.Samsung specifically stated that they have no involvement in how the chips are being used. Getting into this field seems to be a no brainer for Samsung as much of the tech used in producing graphic cards is also applicable to making ASICs.
Who Are the Chips For?
Although it is not known who the chips are for, there is a there is a company in Japan named GMO internet that has announced will be mass producing ASICs, and they have already produced a 12nm chip, with a 7nm in development. They have announced they will use these to mine for themselves as well as producing them for retail sales. Unless Bitmain or Canaan are switching suppliers, Samsung could be the supplier for GMO. This is on top of Japanese company SBI Holdings building a Bitcoin Cash mine after stating that it will use Bitcoin Cash for international payments. Once these miners are produced, unless Bitmain and others producer miners with the same size of chips, they will quickly be beat out of the market(The S9 and Dragonmint use 16nm)
Is this going to bring the much needed decentralization of mining?
Maybe. That remains to be seen. But it definitely is not a bad thing that more companies are getting involved in the ASIC space, as this allows for more development and more distribution of assets that will hopefully bring about the end of Bitmain’s effective monopoly and secure a much healthier and distributed Bitcoin mining space.
Koreans, Do They Care?
Um, I'm not sure about this one. I mean, there is news articles about it, so obviously it has some attention. But with electricity prices being high here, and most people liking Ethereum mining over Bitcoin, it doesn't seem likely that Koreans will be lining up to get ASIC miners just because a Korean company is help making them. On the Korean government side though, it may help regulators be a bit more lax on regulations. Seeing that the biggest company in Korea who touches nearly half the economy has skin in the Bitcoin game, the government might not want to hurt its own best friend by over regulating the industry, whether that be exchanges or mining.
submitted by jnembit to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin open hardware implementation of P2P currency: Bitcoin Open ASIC

Scaling decentralized software may also require scaling decentralized hardware for the long-term harmony and health of the ecosystem.
Shenzhen and Hsinchu both have vibrant EMS ecosystems with deep experience in the practical realities of yield management in 16nm fabrication.
It may take approximately USD3m to take a first cut at a creating a open PoW ASIC design via MPW, with perhaps a further USD7m for a 10nm full mask.
I'm wondering if there are any hardware hackers or contributors here who might be interested in research into scaling Bitcoin hardware, and in the development of a Bitcoin Open ASIC ... thoughts?
submitted by pindarhk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The BitMain Monopoly

Have we not built up the bitmain monopoly buy supporting their hardware so heavily ? No one seems to use anything else and there are no other viable bitcoin miners on the market - in a market where its not that hard to design, print and produce mining chips ?
A next-gen USB chip that does 1TH would easily put the market back where it needs to be... and make a ton of cash as well. Where are BitFury and Spondoolies when you need them.
Even a simple USB miner based on the BitFury 16nm chip at 100GH/s would be awesome and the market would eat it up... and I am sure they have new hardware by now thats faster and better than this
http://bitfury.com/products#16nm-asic
submitted by jahshaka to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What's next for bitcoin

Here's a brief list that's just a fraction of the positive news. Does anyone have anything to add to the list or any suggestions on things to change?
Future
Videos that really explain where we are headed
submitted by BillyHodson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Short Bitcoin Q&A: What will happen during The Halvening 2016?

An interesting opinion. The TLDW is: bitcoin miners on 16nm hardware will remain competitive, otherwise not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMP-24ej81w&feature=youtu.be
submitted by jph108 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Bitcoin - The next 12 months

Can anyone help me with some updates or suggestions for items to add to this list?
Completed
Future
submitted by BillyHodson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Starkware ICO Review - Vitalik's TOP SECRET ICO?

video version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9olDfeIVZoo
video slides: https://www.slideshare.net/DvirOren/starkware-ico-review-vitaliks-top-secret-ico

.

Starkware ICO Review - Vitalik's TOP SECRET ICO?

0. Background
Credit to CLEAR&SIMPLE for finding this!
.
1. Idea
2. ICO Details/Status
.
4. Team
.
5. Advisors/Investors
.
6. Hype (as of May 12th, 2018)
.
7. Sidenotes/Worth mentioning
.
8. Summary
Seems like amazing project but very early stage and possibly unreachable for average investors
.
📹 Don't forget to Subscribe to get notified about top ICO's here http://thecryptosphere.co/youtube
.
💲 $500 Bitcoin giveaway http://thecryptosphere.co/giveaway 💲
.
🔥ICO Spreadsheet http://www.thecryptosphere.co/spreadsheet 🔥
.
Please upvote this if you enjoyed this quick ICO summary!
Dvir
submitted by tallfarang to u/tallfarang [link] [comments]

How RaiBlocks can save the World - and PC gaming (DRAFT for community review)

Hey guys, loving Rai so much, want it to take over yesterday!! There was a suggestion for an appeal to PC gamers, I am not much of a writer but had a go at it. The technical details are not all 100% correct I know, and lay terms have been used a lot, but i'm trying to educate people that don't use crypto or not heavily into it anyway. I'm looking for suggestions here before submitting under gaming or wherever you think is best, cheers.
How RaiBlocks can save the World - and PC gaming
On 3rd January 2009, the world change forever. At the time, nobody noticed. Something incredible had happened though... the first non copyable digital asset was created. The creator of this unique asset knew it would change the world, but probably didn't expect that it would come at a massive environmental cost, and push state of the art PC gaming out of the reach of Millions.
When Satoshi Nakamoto created Bitcoin in 2009, he created a system that allowed the transfer of digital information, but made that information non copyable. That’s what Bitcoin is, a non copyable digital asset. In order to make it non copyable, there is a list, with every Bitcoins location defined. Keeping this list secure requires all computers on the bitcoin network to conduct a simple calculation, called a hash. But not just one hash, the network has to try lots of hashes until it finds one, by luck, that secures the list (blockchain). Initially it was just Satoshi and his old laptop running and securing the entire Bitcoin network, guessing away, creating new block after new block, by luck, around every 10 minutes. But Satoshi knew that other people would need to join in, if the list was to really be secure, and that 100 laptops hashing would find the lucky hash 100 times faster than one laptop would. So he created an ingenious solution, the hash number that needs to be found by luck, increases in difficulty automatically to match the hardware being added to the network. Like an arms race between the computer network and infinity, as the network gets stronger, the guessing gets harder. With Bitcoins being worthless in Dollar terms, there were only computer enthusiasts, crypto anarchists and weirdos hashing Bitcoin in 2009. As time went on, and the price of bitcoin went into the cents, people started running their work mainframes at night to mine Bitcoin… the hash rate climbed… the price climbed with adoption.
When the Bitcoin price hit parity with the Dollar, there was serious money to be made by securing the Bitcoin network… and designers quickly realised that computers with graphics cards for gaming, GPU’s were great at fast hash guessing. This was just the beginning, and went unnoticed by the world outside bitcoin at the time. Eventually specialty manufacturers emerged with computers made specifically for hashing, ASIC Bitcoin computers. Every time the price increased, the incentive to mine grew. Everytime the mining grew, the difficulty grew.
As we all know, the price of Bitcoin, and other alternative Blockchains has exploded, and the incentive to mine is staggering. The situation at the beginning of 2018, is that the system that was originally run by a single PC, is now being run by a network of computers so vast that it is making PC gaming unaffordable, and having a staggering environmental impact. Any computer that can be used for mining, is used for mining, driving modern graphics card prices so high, that most people could not dream to afford one. The ASIC computer builders are also booking out entire factory runs, pushing up the price of all high end electronic devices, from PC’s to Smartphones. The world’s largest high end chip manufacturers, (TSMC 16nm chips), are making more Bitcoin chips than anything else, with 100,000 wafers per month produced, each wafer makes thousands of chips. This is pushing the price of high end micro chips through the roof as the quantity available on the market decreases.. The environmental impact is massive, power usage is massive, each transaction uses enough power to keep a household light bulb running for several years. The Mining incentive does reduce with time, by design, but as the price rises, the incentive increases. This makes Bitcoin heavy on electricity, and high end microchips, by design.
So, is there a cure? All other cryptocurrencies are based on the same blockchain design, and while some are centralised to reduce the mining, those coins will never be trusted like a distributed system, except one - Raiblocks.
Raiblocks is a decentralised cryptocurrency, but it’s nothing like Bitcoin. If Bitcoin and it’s fellow blockchain systems were a steam locomotive running on dolphin oil and babys tears, Raiblocks is a Tesla Roadster with Mr Fusion for the battery. Transactions complete in a few seconds, because there is no need to guess trillions of different numbers for 10 minutes. It is decentralised and secured by well understood cryptography. There is no mining, no ASIC’s, and no GPU’s. The faster it kills Bitcoin, the better off the world will be.
Raiblocks main technical advantage over Bitcoin is its speed, it’s as fast as Visa, whereas Bitcoin is at best 5 minutes, at worst, comparable to a bank cheque. Raiblocks is also a lot simpler by design than bitcoin. Example: if you want to send 1 raiblock to a friend, you can do that. With Bitcoin, that’s not possible. Try send 1 bitcoin, you can only send 0.999998 , because you have to pay the miners to help destroy the environment, and drive up the price of CPU’s GPU’s and anything on earth made with electricity. Even if you had a no fee situation, or extra funds, with bitcoin there are 2 transactions for every spend, one to the recipient, one to the “spare change”. This is a legacy of the old system, it’s confusing and totally hilarious to Raiblocks users, whom have a simple and elegant modern experience, that feels more like a simple bank account.
So how do you get onto Raiblocks and help kill Bitcoin? Easier said than done! . At the moment, you can only buy Raiblocks with Bitcoin! But you can get a wallet for free, and publish your address online for others to pay you tips, or larger amounts into your wallet. Because there are no fees, ever, small payments are possible and as easy as sending an email. Raiblocks has only been around for months, not years. More entry points to the system will emerge as Raiblocks becomes better known, so you can help by looking into Raiblocks and telling others about the first GPU friendly cryptocurrency!
submitted by dontlikecomputers to RaiBlocks [link] [comments]

12-10 23:33 - 'Lets have a discussion about energy consumption in bitcoin mining and what that means towards the carbon footprint today.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/Cryptolution removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1-11min

'''
There was a [very good coindesk article in July 2014]1 that broke down the carbon footprint of the bitcoin mining network. At the date of the article, our hashrate was 146,505 TH/s. Now that we are at above 13 exahashes/s this represents a 94 fold increase hashing power.
[Here is the cost breakdown chart from the coindesk article]2 .
As you can see from this image, the carbon footprint of bitcoin in 2014 is a tiny fraction compared to the carbon footprint of the traditional banking system. Yet at a 0.78 Billion per year cost in 2014, at a 94 fold increase of power that would now be 73.32 billion, which would make bitcoin 9.52 billion more in electricity costs.
But this is trying to extrapolate data in a non-accurate way. In order to understand why this is inaccurate, we must look at how all of this technology works and how technology has scaled upwards while decreasing electricty consumption.
The bitcoin network at 13 exahashes is roughly 130 times greater than the largest super computer (Sunway, 93 petahashes per sec in china, see [top500.org]3 )
So when you make that statement, you think "wow, bitcoin must use a lot of energy to be 130 times more powerful than the largest super computer network!"
But, its not apples to oranges. These super computer networks are non-specialized hardware (comparably to bitcoin) in that they have generalized computing capabilities. This means that these systems require more standardized hardware so that they can preform a large amount of different computing functions.
So, for example, the largest Sunway supercomputer @ 93 petaflops (roughly 1/130th the power of the bitcoin network) preforms its calculations at 93,014.6 petahashes @ 15,371 kW = 93014000 Gh @ 15370000 watts. Doing the maths, this comes out to a 0.16524 W/Gh.
The AntMiner S9 currently operates at 0.098 Gh ....so nearly double the energy efficiency of what the most powerful super computer network in the world operates at.
You have the Dragonmint miner coming out Q1-Q2 in 2018 which uses 0.075J/GHs ....a 30% efficiency increase over the Antminer S9.
And next year japanese giant GMO is launching into the bitcoin mining business, stating they will be releasing a 7nm ASIC design, which is more than double the efficiency of the current 16nm design the Antminer S9 uses. This will mean a more than doubling of energy efficiency. They said they have plans after the release of the first product to research "5nm, and 3.5nm mining chips"
So, what is the point of understanding all of this? Well, you have to understand how technology scales (think Moore's law) to understand how we can achieve faster computational speeds (more exahashes per second) without increasing the carbon footprint.
So if you look at a proof of work chart, you'll see it has scaled linearly upwards since the birth of bitcoin. And it would be logical to assume that the more hashes per sec thrown into the network, that it would equate to more power being spent. Yet this is not true due to advancements in ASIC chip design, power efficiency, and basic economic fundamentals.
You see, as new miners come out, because they are more efficient, people can run much faster mining rigs at much lower cost. This immediately adds much more hashing power to the network, which decreases the profitability of old miners. And to give you an idea of how much more cost efficient these are, lets look at Antminers products.
S9 - 0.098 W/Gh
S7 - 0.25 W/Gh
Avalon6 - 0.29 w/Gh
You can see the S9 is 3 times more power efficient than the Avalon6. That translates to "It costs 3 times more to operate this equipment". That aint no small difference.
These differences, combined with energy costs are what forces miners to stop running old hardware and to upgrade to newer models or exit mining completely. So as new mining equipment hits the market, old less efficient mining rigs go offline. The amount of hashes per sec continues to climb, yet the actual power usage of the entire network does not scale at the same rate that the hashes per sec scale at, due to increased energy efficiency.
The question that I would like to see answered by the community is this -
What has changed between now and 2014 in terms of total watts consumed? How can we calculate the real carbon footprint of todays bitcoin mining network compared to this data from 2014?
What equipment was running in 2013-2014, what were their W/Gh and how many of these machines do we speculate are still running vs more efficient mining rigs powering the network today? What is the Th/S differences between these mining rigs, and how much more power do we contribute towards the network today because of these optimized rigs?
Mining is not my specialty and there are going to be many people here who are better suited to tackling these problems.
I think these questions need to be answered and articulated because these are questions that im starting to see a lot from the mainstream as criticism towards bitcoin. I know the generic answer, aka "Bitcoin mining still uses a fraction of the cost that the entire global banking system does", but we really need to do better than that. We need to examine the different power types used in bitcoin mining -
How much of bitcoin mining is from hydroelectric? Nuclear? Wind? Solar? Coal? Natural Gas? What regions contribute the largest hashing power and can we evaluate whether these regions are Hydroelectric, Coal, Nuclear etc dependent?
If we are to articulate effective arguments against those who naysay bitcoin over its carbon footprint, then we must do so with good data to backup our positions.
Hopefully the numbers above are accurate/correct. Honestly only spent a few minutes doing napkin math, so I expect there to be mistakes, please let me know and thank you very much all.
'''
Lets have a discussion about energy consumption in bitcoin mining and what that means towards the carbon footprint today.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Cryptolution
1: https://www.coindesk.com/microscope-conclusions-costs-bitcoin/ 2: https://imgur.com/a/eKipC 3: ww**top500*org/*ists*2*17/11*
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

[Discussion] Does this scream SCAM! to you?

I am in desperate need of a GREAT PC builder. I have an ad out on CL too, but I am also seaching ads for those who may not see it. I am pasting a copy of my ad here hoping it may be up your alley.
Thanks, [name removed]
AD:
I am seeking to hire the best computer hardware person in the area. Students ok! Must have hardware skills, be creative, and have the ability to get parts at a great price.
I am an investor in cryptocurrency (Bitcoin BTC, Litecoin LTC, etc) and I am looking for someone who can build miners from scratch in order to exponentially grow my mining operations.
Ideally I would like machines built that are more powerful and affordable than the new Smart Miner 3.0 SHA-256 (by minerslab). That machine is doing 20 TH/s and they are asking around $4,600 for that particular machine.
Smart Miner 3.0 SHA-256 SPECS: Hashing power.........................20TH/s Hashing Algorithm....................SHA-256 Embedded PSU.......................2100 Watts Estimate power consumption.....0.102 Watt per 1GH/s Chip........................................16nm HPP Control unit.............................Embedded, with pre-installed OS and mining software Monitor connection..................DVI, HDMI Data Interface..........................USB 3.0, Ethernet 100 Mbps Wireless connection..................Wi-Fi (802.11a, 802.11b/g/n, 802.11ac) Warranty
Along with the machine build out, I would like to discuss a maintenance contract with you as well.
If everything goes as planned, and the first miner is hashing correctly, I would be looking to commission you to build several more each month (right now, at the current price point, mining difficulty and ROI time tables, my max monthly expenditure for additional miners is $10,000.)
I am a serious local buyer and will be reviewing proposals daily. I will hold face to face interviews with the top 5 candidates. I would like to see some of your other work if possible, not interested in Vaporware.
Please reply with your experience and a preliminary bid.
Don't miss this opportunity! If you can't make it happen but you know someone who can, I am willing to pay a referral fee once they complete the first fully functional miner.
submitted by blackashi to buildapc [link] [comments]

What Transistors Will Look Like At 5nm

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 94%.
"GAA transistors provide better electrostatics than finFETs, which should allow for some additional gate length scaling," said Mark Bohr, a senior fellow and director of process architecture and integration at Intel.
The jury is still out on the feasibility of gate-all-around, prompting the industry to consider finFETs at 5nm. Regardless of the architecture, the challenge is to develop 5nm designs that go beyond niche-oriented markets at the high end.
To help the industry gain some insights into gate-all-around FETs, Semiconductor Engineering has taken a look at the basic process flow and the challenges with this technology.
Starting at 22nm and 16nm/14nm, chipmakers migrated from planar devices to finFET transistors.
"It's not like from finFET to gate-all-around that you get a huge advantage," said David Fried, chief technology officer at Coventor.
"There will be two or three or more finFET nodes, and it will really be a question of whether you're changing the material, or whether you go to horizontal nanowire," Lam's Hemker said.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: gate-all-around#1 finFET#2 nanowire#3 5nm#4 material#5
Post found in /Futurology, /hardware, /electronics, /Bitcoin, /BitcoinAll, /techsnap and /hackernews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Did you notice...?

how back in october through the december rally to the high, all of a sudden all the asic mining companies got their shit together, and pushed products through. i waited six months for bfl's jalapenos, and by the time i got them... they never mined anywhere near the 3 bitcoins i paid for them... this isn't anything that hasn't been said before... but i feel that these asic companies are mining with our hardware, and just when the price is going up, and there is pressure on them to come out with a product, they do... but it comes at the cost of lost opportunity... i believe that the way bitcoin is designed, it has the power to fundamentally changed everything, and redistribute wealth on a global scale... but man... i just feel really burned... i haven't bought hardware yet this generation, because it's all already outdated... and i don't feel like waiting for 16nm, 14nm, and 10nm nodes to come out. i'd honestly rather just buy bitcoin. when a butterfly labs, or a blackminer, or a bitmine.ch, or a cryoniks.com comes asking for money upfront for their machines, i just feel really let down when 6 months down the road, you still don't have a product, a working prototype, an update to your site, and sometimes in the worst case scenario, complete vaporware. knc, they have a great reputation, but price range, they are just out of reach for the average enthusiast. buying bitcoin has taught me the value in saving money. when you buy bitcoin it pays off... in the long run... this year, is an infrastructure year. last year was a coming out party. 3rd and 4th quarter, i think we're going to see a similar trend like we did last year. when i seen the price go up to $400 i panicked and sold. i think i'm a little wiser now, and i have to justify my waiting. so, i won't sell when it goes past a little over $1,000 or even $5,000 i'll not even sell at all, and get back into mining ironically... i just feel the more i write about bitcoin, the more in circles i'm talking. good times.
submitted by pimpingken to BitcoinMining [link] [comments]

InfiniteHash is hiring a Design Engineer to join our team. Compensation is great, along with benefits.

InfiniteHash is hiring in the following fields.
Design Engineer needed for ASIC related projects
· The candidate will be responsible for co-coordinating our design team, overseeing integration and testing of new proprietary ASIC technologies.
· Design PCB’s and assist in component implementation design.
Note: We are not only a SHA256 based ASIC design team.
Our Ideal candidate must have a great technical aptitude and be able to think outside of the box. Communication skills and ability to work in a team environment are a must.
The technical requirements for this position are as follows.
· Should be well versed with synthesis and timing closure flows and concepts. Proficient in RTL design using Verilog and also in verification languages. (Altium etc)
· Experience in deep-submicron ASIC design at 28 nm or less (20nm,16nm FINfet) plus experience with high speed RTL block design in excess of 800 MHz and proficiency in techniques for distributed power implementation (high, medium low).
· Must have experience with the complete physical design flow and be able to adapt and integrate existing technologies to our custom hardware applications. · Be able to provide detailed technical documentation of processes.
Note: You would not be the lead engineer on any projects, however, we distribute our work well and it would be easy to work on multiple tasks at the same time.
The reason why we are deciding to hire from within the community rather than outsourcing our jobs, is because we believe that the Reddit Community played a large role in the development of Bitcoin. If anyone feels as though they can meet these parameters, and also, is someone who is able to work long hours, for a very high risk, yet substantially greater high reward scenario, this position is for you. I have spent 12 months of research to get us where we are today, and am proud of what we have accomplished though most of it is behind closed doors, once we are prepared to let the public know what it is exactly we are doing, a press release will follow. As far as compensation goes, we are well funded and this allows us to spend our resources on what matters.
Thank you for all of your time and considerations, with the utmost respect to all, sincerely,
Adeel Anwar
submitted by adeel06 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitfury 16nm ASIC Demo - Part 1 of 3 AntMiner S9 14T + 1600W PSU 14Th/s Bitfury 16nm ASIC Demo LIGHTNINGASIC 16NM BITCOIN MINER mining hardware - YouTube

Bitcoin mining hardware giant BitFury has announced that the testing of its 16 nm application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) has met expectations. The company unveiled the chip several months ago, stating that it can attain energy efficiencies of 0.06 J/GH (1 J = 0.000000278 kwh, 1 GH = 10 9 hashes), which would be unparalleled in the industry. The company said the chip will herald the ... Bitcoin Mining Hardware Shop - Unser Testsieger . Herzlich Willkommen auf unserer Webpräsenz. Unsere Mitarbeiter haben es uns zur Kernaufgabe gemacht, Produktpaletten verschiedenster Art zu checken, sodass Interessierte ganz einfach den Bitcoin Mining Hardware Shop kaufen können, den Sie für gut befinden. Zur Sicherung der Neutralität, berücksichtigen wir viele verschiedene Stimmen in ... There is Bitcoin mining hardware, which mines bitcoins. There are also Bitcoin hardware wallets like the Ledger Nano X, which secure bitcoins. Quick Tip. Mining is not the fastest way to get bitcoins. Buying bitcoin with a debit card is the fastest way. Check Profitability. You can use our calculator below to check the mining hardware above. Input your expected electricity price and the hash ... Bitcoin mining hardware maker BitFury has announced the design completion and tapeout of its 16 nm ASIC (application specific integrated circuit). The company expects the milestone to bring “unmatched energy efficiency” to bitcoin mining. It expects the chip to operate at a peak efficiency of 0.06 J/GH (1 J = 0.000000278 kwh, 1 GH = 10^9 hashes). Join the iFX EXPO Asia and discover your ... Bitcoin Mining Hardware Shop - Der Gewinner unseres Teams. Unsere Redaktion an Produkttestern eine große Auswahl an Marken getestet und wir zeigen Ihnen hier die Testergebnisse. Selbstverständlich ist jeder Bitcoin Mining Hardware Shop unmittelbar auf Amazon.de verfügbar und gleich lieferbar. Während entsprechende Fachmärkte seit Jahren nur mit Wucherpreisen und mit vergleichsweise ...

[index] [47688] [27336] [21101] [11270] [22507] [5917] [12680] [48451] [5747] [10461]

Bitfury 16nm ASIC Demo - Part 1 of 3

Your one stop place to shop for fun and educational videos on all things tech! Oh, and don't forget gaming! Gotta make time for gaming! Skip navigation Sign in. Search LIGHTNINGASIC 16NM BITCOIN MINER. 7T, 2.9KG, 325x165X130mm 11T, 3.5KG, 325x165X130mm 30T, 10KG, 325X165X400mm. This is the last video of our 3 video series about our new 16nm Bitcoin Mining ASIC. In this video we demonstrate the performance in immersion cooling. Don't... How to Buy Bitcoin & Store it on a Trezor One Hardware Wallet - Duration: 21:19. Rex Kneisley 10,790 views. 21:19. Trezor - Initial Setup and Trezor Bitcoin Wallet Review - Duration: 7:17. One ...

#