5 Best Bitcoin Mining Hardware ASIC Machines (2020 Rigs)
Bitcoin Mining Pools Article - Bitcoin Miner - I mine for ...
New Product– Bitcoin Miner SnowLeopard A1, 49T Miner Home
9 Best Bitcoin Mining Pools: Legit Sites (2020 Companies)
7Th/s KNCMiner Jupiter and Bitfury Bitcoin Miners 7000Gh/s KNC Not Cointerra for sale best offer in BTC gets it.
Listing a package of mining gear that averages about 7Th/s at the pool, in this case BTC Guild. Hash rate will vary between about 6800-7050 but could move by as much as 10% like most miners. I cherry picked a number of units from my collection of primarily KNC gear to focus on high performing systems that provide a great hash rate with reasonable Since some potential buyers have asked I pulled up a Bitcoin calculator for 7Th/s with BTC = $560 USD. Obviously with the variable exchange rate, and difficulty increases estimated it's a possible look but not for sure. This Difficulty Coins Dollars per Day 0.70310438 BTC $393.74 per Week 4.92173067 BTC $2,756.17 per Month 21.37437318 BTC $11,969.65 this diff (est) 4.59761908 BTC $2,574.67 Next Difficulty [estimated] Coins Dollars per Day 0.61923263 BTC $346.77 per Week 4.33462844 BTC $2,427.39 per Month 18.82467208 BTC $10,541.82 All KNCMiner systems running 1.0 firmware with custom clock and voltage settings, clock settings I use not allowed in the stock firmware but all running solid and tested for weeks now. All units have custom fans installed to help maintain ASIC and VRM temperatures. To maintain the listed hash rates units will need to be run with covers off, ambient temperature where I run all KNC units in my crowded basement is about 78F. 6 x KNCMiner November Jupiter with EVGA 1000W Power Supply - 5500Gh/s 1 x KNCMiner October Jupiter 6 module with Lepa 1600W Power Supply - 1025Gh/s 1 x Bitfury 16 Card System with Raspberry Pi 32GB SD and custom Case, Thermaltake Power Supply - 500Gh/s Pics available upon request. Send me an offer want to sell today.
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
TL;DR: The market will inevitably prefer:
non-fiat-funded dev teams (and mining operations);
non-centrally planned, non-hard-coded blocksize - which the users and miners can adjust over time, based on evolving economic and technological conditions.
This means that the market of Bitcoin users and miners will reject Core/Blockstream's SegWit (with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics) - and the market will prefer Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based (user-configurable) blocksize based on a much simpler & safer hard fork - allowing essentially "unlimited" growth in Bitcoin adoption and price. Details Seriously folks, think about it: How many successful broad-based socio-economic disruptive technologies allow their "community debate" about the high-level system specification to be centrally controlled and censored by a bunch of low-level (C++) implementation providers (and a bunch of central bankers funding them with fiat)? The Bitcoin community never really asked for SegWit-as-a-soft-fork. It's being forced on us. SegWit has been the horrendous misbegotten result of years of trolling from three stubborn out-of-touch devs who happened to get millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers: u/nullc and u/adam3us and the odd u/luke-jr who they carefully keep at arm's length - and a tiny army of lesser trolls, trotting out the same-old tired totally debunked, massively downvoted arguments - all supported by central banker trolls who provided $76 million in fiat to fund this misguided mess. Many people in the Bitcoin community have never really participated in or even seen a serious, open, and honest debate about SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited - because there are basically only two kinds of people in the Bitcoin community now:
people who have been brainwashed by the propaganda on the anti-cypherpunk & pro-corporate subreddit r\bitcoin and/or corrupted by fiat from central bankers (and so most of these less-informed people support SegWit)
people who have been ostracized and banned by the anti-cypherpunk & pro-corporate subreddit r\bitcoin - so they moved elsewhere, to btc or Twitter or Medium or wherever (and most of these more-informed people support Bitcoin Unlimited)
Bitcoin development used to be dominated by forward-thinking, community-responsive, devs supporting simple and safe on-chain scaling like Satoshi Nakamoto (whose quotes are banned on r\bitcoin), Gavin Andresen (ceaselessly hounded and attacked by an army of trolls) and Mike Hearn (whose greatest invention may have been the forgotten Lighthouse project - which could have given us bitcoin-funded ie non-fiat-funded development). Now Bitcoin development is dominated by Debbie Downers and Dead Enders like u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr who have never really believed that Bitcoin can scale on-chain and succeed the way that Satoshi said it could. They've been doing everything they can to destroy Satoshi's successful experiment - refusing to remove Bitcoin's temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge for purely political and not technical reasons, and now trying to force everyone to adopt SegWit - the final, fatal kludge. If it wasn't for the massive censoring on r\bitcoin, then a tsunami of true cypherpunk freedom and real community consensus would wash that cesspool clean, and the fiat-funded voices of u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr (and the tiny minority of their vocal but misguided supporters) would sink the the bottom of every thread, a forgotten footnote of history with their shitty soft kludgy centrally-planned anyone-can-spend 1.7MB 1-to-4-discount SegWit soft-fork poison pill. If Bitcoin gets upgraded the way Satoshi said it would (via flag days and/or hard forks - also known as a simple protocol upgrade or a full node referendum), then the community would reject Core/Blockstream's shitty centralized SegWit spaghetti-code soft fork, and Core/Blockstream would be forgotten - and their investors would be furious. The Bitcoin community isn't stupid. Economically intelligent Bitcoin users and miners will not vote against our own economic interests. We will not "upgrade" to dangerous, messy, dead-end technology (SegWit) which needlessly overcomplicates our codebase and needlessly suppresses Bitcoin's userbase and price - when we can just as easily updrade to something clean and simple and growth-oriented like Bitcoin Unlimited, which keeps our codebase clean and simple and safe, while providing an open-ended, market-based, long-term solution for blocksize, supporting long-term (essentially "unlimited") growth in Bitcoin's userbase and price. Everyone (ie, everyone who gets their information on uncensored forums like btc and who isn't getting millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers) knows by now that:
SegWit would radically and recklessly restructure Bitcoin's highly successful security data structures - making all transactions "anyone-can-spend" to any clients with are not "upgraded" to SegWit
It is an outrage and an insult for Core/Blockstream's development team and their squad of cheerleaders on r\bitcoin to call SegWit "safe" and "soft" when it's actually messy, dangerous and overcomplicated - plus it's a dead-end because it will continue to artifically suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price.
It is the very softness (ie: kludginess) of SegWit which would make future upgrades to Bitcoin so much more difficult and complicated (aka "technical debt"). Worst of all: SegWit would introduce a radical, unknown, untested exotic new threat vector: a totally new type of "51% attack" where old coins would now also be at risk (due to SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" semantics - which would be totally unnecessary to use if SegWit had been done as a clean and safe hard fork, instead of a messy and dangerous soft fork). The stubbornness (and recklessness) of insisting on doing SegWit as this kind of dangerous and messy soft fork is 100% because Blockstream is afraid to do a clean and safe "hard" fork - because a hard fork lets Bitcoin users and miners actually have an explicit "vote" - or a "full node referendum" - and Core/Blockstream knows that the result would most likely be that Bitcoin users and miners would "dump" Core/Blockstream's shitty code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its dangerous anyone-can-spend soft-fork hack. So Core/Blockstream are trying to force more dangerous, less useful code on the network, using the toxic tools of fiat and censorship, purely for their own selfish "political" and "economic" reasons. Core/Blockstream has millions of dollars in fiat now so they don't care if they continue to suppress the Bitcoin price like they have since they came on the scene in late 2014.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/ Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014. So, Core/Blockstream offers inferior, centrally planned, dangerous messy code - and they are responsible for not only splitting the community but also even arguably suppressing Bitcoin adoption and price - and now they're such bold arrogant fuckheads that they want to make their hegemony permanent by monopolizing Bitcoin governance forever in the future by sneaking in their shittier and shittier code starting with the Trojan Horse of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its centrally-planned hard-coded parameters and radical dangerous new anti-security model making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" - recklessly and needlessly exposing Bitcoin to exotic, unknown attack vectors which have never existed before in its 8 years of safe and successful growth. Core/Blockstream don't give a fuck if they hurt us Bitcoin users and miners in the process - because they don't care about you - they only care about themselves - and the central bankers who are paying them. Bitcoin Unlimited isn't influenced by censorship or fiat.
Bitcoin Unlimited comes from the community - it's supported by users and miners - and independent, non-fiat-funded devs.
Bitcoin Unlimited proposes using Nakamoto Consensus to provide a one-time, long-term solution for evolving blocksizes - now, and years into the future.
Bitcoin Unlimited (BU) makes two parameters - Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD) - explicitly and formally and "internally (online)" configurable and "signal-able" by miners and users.
In fact, these two parameters already have been implicitly and formally and "externally (off-line)" configurable for nearly a decade now - thus formalizing and internalizing (and moving on-line) several long-standing, successful, informal, external (offline) practices.
So, Bitcoin Unlimited provides an unlimited future path to maximum potential growth in Bitcoin adoption and Bitcoin throughput and Bitcoin price - with a single one-time upgrade posing minimal technological disruption and minimal game-theory risk.
Yes BU does involve some new game theory, which should be and in fact has been analyzed and tested in-depth to see if it would work - and there is a growing "community consensus" - among forward-thinking economically-incentivized users and miners and devs - that BU does indeed "do the right thing".
The bottom line is:
Bitcoin Unlimited's Excessive Block (EB) / Acceptance Depth (AD) approach is the product of open, decentralized, non-fiat-funded debate. Yes BU might have "imperfections" including bugs - just like Bitcoin itself did in the beginning. And you can also be sure - due to BU's open, decentralized, community-based, non-fiat-funded process, we will all work together, driven by our economic incentives, to make sure that any imperfections or "bugs" are immediately fixed, and to make sure that BU is a technological and economic success.
Core/Blockstream's SegWit-as-a-soft-fork,with its centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize, and its centrally-planned 1-to-4-ratio accounting-trick making some transactions cheaper than others is messy code, that doesn't provide market-based scaling, that arbitrary hard-codes crazy values like 1.7MB and 1-to-4 discounts that some dev pulled out of their ass, and also leads to dreaded "vendor dev team lock-in" giving Core/Blockstream permanent "job security" - due to the "worse is better" principle where bad devs give themselves more and more job security by continuing to make their shitty code base shittier and shittier.
SegWit is doomed to be second-rate compared to BU - in terms of technology as well as economics.
Bitcoin Unlimited's simple and safe long-term market-based scaling keeps our code cleaner and more flexible, and ultimately will make us all much richer and make Bitcoin easier and safer to use and upgrade, when compared to SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocks and dangerous soft-fork spaghetti code.
Evaluating our "upgrade options" in those (technological and economic and "governance") terms is the right way to evaluate these things - indeed it is the only way to evaluate these things - and everybody (except a bunch of unpopular out-of-touch devs and shills sucking the dicks of central bankers) knows that SegWit's messy technology, economic and scaling dead-end, and centralized governance is totally inferior to Bitcoin Unlimited, on all three counts. Everyone knows that:
With SegWit, the community would continue to suffer - immediately launching into yet-another never-ending toxic divisive blocksize debate to remove SegWit's yet-another centrally planned artificially low 1.7MB blocksize kludge WTF?!?
With SegWit, Bitcoin volume would continue to be centrally controlled, so Bitcoin's price would continue to be centrally suppressed - with Core/Blockstream continuing to centrally control and "kludge up" Bitcoin's codebase, adding more and more of their non-modular, messy continually shittier and shittier soft forks.
With Bitcoin Unlimited, the community continues to be in control - of our code, our governance, and our blocksize - not a tiny handful of fiat-funded devs and miners like Core/Blockstream and BitFury and a tiny minority of their outspoken supporters (who are well-known on this forum - just look at the bottom of every thread, where they are massively downvoted - but never censored! - after spouting their tired, tedious, repeatedly debunked astroturf arguments). The next time those people try to attack the idea of market-based blocksize, we know how to make their heads explode, just by asking them: If the users the miners shouldn't decide the blocksize - then who the fuck should?? And if that kind of conversation were to continue, it might go like: Who should decide the blocksize - you or me? _"Small-blockers" Blocksize central planners are satisfied with a centrally planned one-time hard-coded bump to 1.7MB blocks via a dangerous messy convoluted "soft" fork called SegWit which actually centralizes and suppresses Bitcoin by pricing most people off of the blockchain. Fine, that's your opinion and you're free to say it and we're free to downvote it and to reject your poorly written code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its anyone-can-spend hack. Meanwhile, the vast majority of Bitcoin users and miners want to be free - and we want our code to be simple and safe. We support market-based blocksize so our code and our markets can be free of some ridiculous arbitrary centrally planned hard-coded 1MB 1.7MB blocksize - and we want our code to be fred of messy, dangerous hacks and kludges lke SegWit. Instead, we support decentralized governance and market-based, non-centrally-planned, open-ended Bitcoin debate and open-ended Bitcoin economic and social growth and adoption. The Bitcoin community can and should and therefore eventually (inevitably) will adapt the software solution which explicitly supports users and miners deciding the blocksize in a clean, safe, future-proof "hard" fork called Bitcoin Unlimited. In the end, the market will choose the approach (SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited) which provides the most economic incentives, using the simplest and safest technology. Economic incentives, based on using the simplest and safest technology, are what drives Bitcoin and makes it succeed.
Blockstream/Core and BitFury can "afford" to ignore the will of the Bitcoin community, and can "afford" to ignore their own economic incentives - because they have millions of dollars in fiat, and they communicate on censored forums. They're fiat-funded, centralized, censored, and fragile. They're fine with making their codebase even more centralized and fragile - by adopting SegWit.
The rest of the Bitcoin community communicates on non-censored forums, and we want to maximize the value of our investments in Bitcoin. We're community-oriented and our code supports market-based blocksize using simple and safe and flexible and upgradeable code - so we're adopting Bitcoin Unlimited.
You are free to choose between these two options - based on your own economic incentives, and based on your understanding of the best technology roadmap: How rich are you gonna get with SegWit, now and in the long term?
SegWit is dangerous and messy, fiat-funded, censorship-supported centrally-planned soft-fork spaghetti code - creating zombie nodes and requiring millions of lines of risky code changes in all wallets, exchanges and business software - and in the end only offering an arbitrary pathetic 1.7MB blocksize - and recklessly making all transactions anyone-can-spend - while increasing "dev team lock-in" and continuing to centrally suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price. ... versus:
How rich are you gonna get with Bitcoin Unlimited, now and in the long term?
Bitcoin Unlimited is clean & safe community-supported non-fiat-funded, non-censorship-based code, providing a long-term scaling and governance solution offering market-based blocksize, where users and miners will continue to determine the size of blocks (as they actually quite successfully and profitably have for the past 8 years), based on our understanding of current financial and technological conditions, while continuing to support unlimited growth in Bitcoin's adoption and price (as we've also seen for the past 8 years).
The market of Bitcoin users and miners (ie, you) can and should (and therefore will) decide!
Bitfury Tardis is another bitcoin mining hardware you can purchase to build passive income. The model runs on BitFury latest Clarke chip technology and provides a mind gobbling 80 Th/s. However, this might mean more Bitcoin for you via mining, but the high Power Consumption kills this feature. Tardis ASIC Bitcoin miner uses 6300W of power to mine your favorite Cryptocurrency. Besides it also ... Bitfury is a diversified blockchain company, the largest industrial miner outside China, developer of software and hardware for working with the Bitcoin blockchain. The company has offices in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Hong Kong, London and Amsterdam. It has data centers in Iceland, Norway, Canada and the Republic of Georgia. Hier sollte eine Beschreibung angezeigt werden, diese Seite lässt dies jedoch nicht zu. Bitfury B8. Description. Model B8 from Bitfury mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 49Th/s for a power consumption of 6400W. Profitability . Period /day /month /year ; Income: $4.98 (0.0003 BTC) $149.46 (0.0114 BTC) $1,793.52 (0.1375 BTC) Electricity-$18.43-$552.96-$6,635.52: Profit-$13.45-$403.50-$4,842.00: Exchange rate 1 BTC = $13,037.13. Algorithms. Algorythm Hashrate ... BitFury – BitFury is one of the largest producers of Bitcoin mining hardware and chips. Its hardware is not available for purchase. Bitcoin Mining Equipment . In addition to a Bitcoin mining ASIC, you’ll need some other Bitcoin mining equipment: Power Supply – Bitcoin rigs need special power supplies to funnel and use electricity efficiently. Cooling Fans – Bitcoin hardware can easily ...
Canada Crypto Mining - HUT8 Mining -Bitfury - 8min Documentary by Jan Cerato - Bitcoin
This is 1 out of 3 videos in series about our new 16nm Bitcoin Mining ASIC where we demonstrate the low power performance of the chip. Notice that there is no heat sink attached. In the next ... In 2018, Bitfury opened a bitcoin mining center in Moi-i-Rana, Norway, powered entirely by Bitfury's proprietary and cutting-edge BlockBoxes. Bitfury is a leading security and infrastructure ... Leading blockchain firm Bitfury answers a common question about bitcoin mining - how many bitcoin have been mined already? To learn more, visit https://bitfu... Learn more about immersion cooling, Bitfury's innovative datacenter solution for more sustainable and efficient bitcoin mining centers. See more products at ... Bitfury Presents: Teeka Tiwari and the Future of Bitcoin (Russian subtitles) ... Alberta Bitcoin Mining with Steve Barbour of Upstream Data - Duration: 7:09. BTC Sessions 1,147 views. 7:09 ...