Does Ethereum need promoters to dig coins
Publish: 2021-05-28 16:22:52
1. Now there are many professional miners who can really make money. Their investment is relatively large, and they need to be built near hydropower stations in remote areas, because mining consumes a lot of electricity, and the cost of electricity is almost the vast majority of the cost of bitcoin mining. Indivial investors, if there is a channel, can buy shares, otherwise in the city is almost unable to make money.
2.
At present, the mining mode can be roughly divided into PPLNs, PPS and PPS +. However, if you want to get a stable income from mining, it is recommended to choose the mining software of PPS mode
when miners are mining, if you want to know how many etheric coins you get, you can use ha Yu miner to see clearly the daily mining income
Harbin miners showed a unified display of revenue for BTC, easy to see, and support for cash withdrawals to Alipay wallet and bitcoin wallet. p>
3. At present, defi liquidity mining is the hottest, so you can use Eth and give it to the exchange for investment. It mainly depends on whether the exchange you choose has enough weight. If you choose the mining service of currency, as one of the four major exchanges, I think it is very important. Then the threshold of its procts is low. I think it is the best mining method at present.
4. The token of Ethereum is proced in the process of mining, with a mining rate of 5 Ethereum coins per piece. The mining process of Ethereum is almost the same as that of bitcoin. For each transaction, miners can use the computer to run the unique title metadata of the block through hash function, and guess the answer repeatedly and quickly until one of them wins
many new users believe that the sole purpose of mining is to generate ether in a way that does not require a central issuer (see our guide "what is ether?"). It's true. The token of Ethereum is proced in the process of mining, with a mining rate of 5 Ethereum coins per piece. But mining is at least as important. Usually, banks are responsible for keeping accurate records of transactions. They make sure that money is not created out of thin air and that users don't cheat and spend money many times. However, blockchain introces a new way to keep records, the whole network instead of intermediary, to verify transactions and add them to the public ledger
Ethereum mining
although "no trust" or "trust minimization" monetary system is the goal, there are still people who need to ensure the security of financial records and ensure that no one cheats. Mining is one of the innovations that makes decentralized records possible. Miners have reached a consensus on the history of transactions in terms of preventing fraud (especially double spending on ether) - an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed before the decentralized currency works on the blockchain. While Ethereum is looking at other ways to reach a consensus on the effectiveness of the deal, mining currently keeps the platform together
how mining works
today, the mining process of Ethereum is almost the same as that of bitcoin. For each transaction, the miner can use the computer to guess the answer repeatedly and quickly until one of them wins. More specifically, the miner will run the unique header metadata (including time stamp and software version) of the block through the hash function (which will return a fixed length, unordered string of numbers and letters, which appears to be random), changing only the 'nonce value', which will affect the hash value of the result
if the miner finds a hash that matches the current target, the miner will be granted ether and broadcast the block across the network for each node to verify and add to their own ledger . If miner B finds the hash, miner a stops working on the current block and repeats the process for the next block. It's hard for miners to cheat in this game. There is no way to fake the work and come up with the right answer to the puzzle. That's why solving puzzles is called "proof of work."
on the other hand, others have little time to verify whether the hash value is correct, which is exactly what each node does. About every 12-15 seconds, a miner finds a stone. If the miner starts to solve the puzzle faster or slower than this, the algorithm will automatically re adjust the difficulty of the problem so that the miner can rebound to about 12 seconds of solution time
miners earn these ethers randomly, and their profitability depends on their luck and the computing power they put in. The specific workload verification algorithm used by Ethereum is called "ethash", which aims to require more memory, making it difficult to mine with expensive ASIC. Special mining chips are now the only profitable way to mine bitcoin
in a sense, ethash may have achieved this goal successfully, because dedicated ASIC is not available for Ethereum (at least not yet). In addition, as Ethereum aims to shift from proof of work mining to "proof of equity" (which we will discuss below), buying ASIC may not be a wise choice because it may not prove useful for a long time< However, Ethereum may never need miners. Developers plan to abandon proof of work, the algorithm currently used by the network to determine which transactions are valid and protect them from tampering to support proof of equity, which is guaranteed by token owners. If and when the algorithm is launched, proof of equity can become a means to achieve distributed consensus, and the consensus uses less resources.
many new users believe that the sole purpose of mining is to generate ether in a way that does not require a central issuer (see our guide "what is ether?"). It's true. The token of Ethereum is proced in the process of mining, with a mining rate of 5 Ethereum coins per piece. But mining is at least as important. Usually, banks are responsible for keeping accurate records of transactions. They make sure that money is not created out of thin air and that users don't cheat and spend money many times. However, blockchain introces a new way to keep records, the whole network instead of intermediary, to verify transactions and add them to the public ledger
Ethereum mining
although "no trust" or "trust minimization" monetary system is the goal, there are still people who need to ensure the security of financial records and ensure that no one cheats. Mining is one of the innovations that makes decentralized records possible. Miners have reached a consensus on the history of transactions in terms of preventing fraud (especially double spending on ether) - an interesting issue that hasn't been addressed before the decentralized currency works on the blockchain. While Ethereum is looking at other ways to reach a consensus on the effectiveness of the deal, mining currently keeps the platform together
how mining works
today, the mining process of Ethereum is almost the same as that of bitcoin. For each transaction, the miner can use the computer to guess the answer repeatedly and quickly until one of them wins. More specifically, the miner will run the unique header metadata (including time stamp and software version) of the block through the hash function (which will return a fixed length, unordered string of numbers and letters, which appears to be random), changing only the 'nonce value', which will affect the hash value of the result
if the miner finds a hash that matches the current target, the miner will be granted ether and broadcast the block across the network for each node to verify and add to their own ledger . If miner B finds the hash, miner a stops working on the current block and repeats the process for the next block. It's hard for miners to cheat in this game. There is no way to fake the work and come up with the right answer to the puzzle. That's why solving puzzles is called "proof of work."
on the other hand, others have little time to verify whether the hash value is correct, which is exactly what each node does. About every 12-15 seconds, a miner finds a stone. If the miner starts to solve the puzzle faster or slower than this, the algorithm will automatically re adjust the difficulty of the problem so that the miner can rebound to about 12 seconds of solution time
miners earn these ethers randomly, and their profitability depends on their luck and the computing power they put in. The specific workload verification algorithm used by Ethereum is called "ethash", which aims to require more memory, making it difficult to mine with expensive ASIC. Special mining chips are now the only profitable way to mine bitcoin
in a sense, ethash may have achieved this goal successfully, because dedicated ASIC is not available for Ethereum (at least not yet). In addition, as Ethereum aims to shift from proof of work mining to "proof of equity" (which we will discuss below), buying ASIC may not be a wise choice because it may not prove useful for a long time< However, Ethereum may never need miners. Developers plan to abandon proof of work, the algorithm currently used by the network to determine which transactions are valid and protect them from tampering to support proof of equity, which is guaranteed by token owners. If and when the algorithm is launched, proof of equity can become a means to achieve distributed consensus, and the consensus uses less resources.
5. Is it going to be a large mine or a private family
it's up to the family to dig. Large can be prepared on a host of 6 or 8 graphics cards, need rx570 (580), or gtx10610170. Then in the preparation of 20 hosts or more can make money. At least 10
it's up to the family to dig. Large can be prepared on a host of 6 or 8 graphics cards, need rx570 (580), or gtx10610170. Then in the preparation of 20 hosts or more can make money. At least 10
6. Core developer Mike Hearn: why bitcoin should be forked
2015-08-17 09:17:38 Views: key words: Mike
related reading: Mike Hearn: internal contradictions in the enterprise prevent Google from accepting bitcoin
Yes, it's coming. The community is beginning to separate, and bitcoin is about to bifurcate: including software, and perhaps blockchain. The two sides of the split are bitcoin core and the micro variant program based on the same program, called bitcoin XT. On August 16, Beijing time, there is now a full version of bitcoin XT
this bifurcation has never happened before. I want to explain this from the perspective of bitcoin XT developers: it can't be said that it hasn't been communicated enough
bitcoin bifurcation, this topic may make many people curious, so this article is written for ordinary readers. It doesn't involve the knowledge that has been debated before
the original version of bitcoin was carefully arranged by Nakamoto, and has always been very clear. The debate is about growth. In 2008, he answered the first question about the design of bitcoin, saying:
visa processed 37 billion transactions in fiscal year 2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. So many deals require 100GB of bandwidth = 12 DVDs or 2 HD quality movies = about $18 of bandwidth at the current price
assuming that the bitcoin network reaches this scale, it will take several years. By then, sending two HD movies over the Internet may not be a big deal
at that time, he was more tired of bitcoin expansion than any of us. His plan is to make bitcoin popular from the beginning, and he knows that this success will change how people use his system. In 2010, he said, "it's good that we keep [blockchain] files as small as possible
the final solution will not care how big it (blockchain file) becomes
but now, while it is still small, keep it in a small state, and the growth of new users will be faster. When I finally implement client only mode, it's no longer a problem
"
in 2011, through a series of calculations, I expanded the expansion intuition of Nakamoto in detail: if bitcoin becomes so popular, will it completely replace visa? The answer is that his plan is credible - you don't need anything else but a computer, even if there's so much traffic. Before he left, I also implemented the model he talked about
it was Nakamoto's plan that brought us together. It has changed the lives of thousands of people around the world. Some of us give up our jobs, others devote their spare time to the project, others set up companies and even travel around the world. This is an idea that ordinary people can complete mutual payment through blockchain and create this global community
that's the vision I signed, and that's the vision Gavin Andresen signed, and that's the vision signed by millions of developers, founders of startups, evangelists, and users around the world
and this vision is now in danger. In recent months, it's clear that a small group of people have completely different plans for bitcoin. These people have never really understood Nakamoto's intention because they are worried about success, if the technology has never been improved, if people can't run bitcoin on their home computers? Doesn't this make bitcoin move away from centralization and more like banking? What if people start to rely on bitcoin, even if it's imperfect
now, Nakamoto has chosen to disappear, and they want to make a major change: substantially increase transaction costs, end support for mobile P2P wallets, give up unconfirmed transactions, and many things that have never been found in the project's founding documents
the so-called lightning network, which is about to be promoted as a substitute for Nakamoto's design, does not exist. The white paper describes that it was announced earlier this year, and if it can be realized, it will be a huge departure from the bitcoin we know and love. Pick one of the many differences, and a bitcoin address won't work. What they will be replaced with has not yet been worked out (because no one knows). There are many other surprising pitfalls that I mentioned in another article. What will it eventually proce to make our existing bitcoin network better? It is still extremely unclear
what happened to the free market
in theory, none of this should be a problem. Lightning network is built on the blockchain, but it needs a rather trivial upgrade process to achieve the best function. Of course, people are willing to explore this direction, which is entirely possible. If the jobs they set up are better than the existing ordinary bitcoin network, then the market will choose their way, if so... It is fair competition for them! The current design of bitcoin is unlikely to be the final version for payment. This is a reasonable imagination, one day it will be eliminated in the competition, or enhanced by something else
but our system is working today. It has an ecosystem, including developers, exchanges, wallets, ATMs, books, applications, conferences, and many people have learned how it works
if there was a free choice, would people decide to move to a completely different system
we don't know, but the people who are pushing these things don't want the market to make a decision. That's what happened
a long time ago, Nakamoto set up a temporary "mixed brand assembly computer": he limited the size of each block to 1 MB. He did so in order to keep the blockchain in a small state in the early days, until we now call it the creation of SPV wallet (that is, what Nakamoto calls "client only mode"). As mentioned above, when the time comes, it can be adjusted. It has never been said that it is permanent. In the end, it becomes irrelevant. In 2011, I wrote the first SPV tool with my respected colleague Andreas schildbach, and we built the first and most popular Android wallet together. Since then, SPV wallets have been used on major platforms. Therefore, Nakamoto's reasons for this temporary restriction have been solved a long time ago
with the continuous growth of bitcoin, its blocks are also growing. Reasonable traffic forecasts show that the block will reach the current system limit sometime next year, at the latest in 2017. Another bubble or pressure cycle will force us to exceed that limit before, and the result may not be beautiful.
so it's time to raise the upper limit, or delete it completely. That's our plan, and the problem starts: those who don't want to see bitcoin expand have decided to postpone the process. They saw a beautiful, one-time opportunity to forcibly transfer bitcoin's predetermined path to a completely different technological trajectory. They don't know what this alternative design will be, and of course they haven't built it yet. But it doesn't matter. They believe that by blocking the growth of the blockchain, they can "motivate" (that is, force) the bitcoin community to switch to different things, something more in line with their personal technical taste
why restrict blockchain
so far, I haven't explained much about these people or who they are. I think it's a very time-consuming and laborious thing to name names in this article, and it seems to be futile in the end. Presumably those who care about this matter already know it, and those who don't know it can't recognize the people who are involved in it
I just want to say that they are very few people who have access to the bitcoin core code base, or those who are convinced by their arguments
therefore, we will not discuss these arguments here, which has been too much. Gavin and I have written articles to analyze the questions raised by everyone to refute them. Sometimes the answer is some common sense, some will be more in-depth, need more work, such as network simulation
the best place to understand these controversies is in Gavin's blog. I hope to find a link to a collection of opinions similar to those refuting Gavin's point of view, but none of them
to sum up, in the long and hard debate, several different opposition groups:
if bitcoin approaches this limit, we will be stimulated to create something better
the limit should be raised, but it is not ready (the actual time is not specified)
if bitcoin is expanded and becomes more centralized, it will no longer be bitcoin< Other people: if the objections you support are not listed above, please check Gavin's blog and find out the answer
the first point may become a reality one day, but it is not comparable with the theoretical system on paper. But no one who has seen any alternative solutions on the table thinks they can be implemented within 12 months (see another example in the last paragraph, for example)... Even assuming they are better. This is also an example of the nirvana fallacy:
the nirvana fallacy refers to the name of the informal fallacy of some unrealistic and idealized substitutes for something more practical. It can also refer to the tendency to think that there is a perfect solution to a specific problem, so it is also called perfectionism fallacy
it's obviously advantageous to create an imitative dichotomy for a current choice. But it's also totally incredible. One who uses the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. According to this fallacy, the choice is not between real-world solutions. One is a realistic solution, and the other is an impractical solution, which is the "better" choice between the two
the answer to the second objection is too vague. It is reasonable to believe that the overall upgrade of each bitcoin node may take one year, and the actual bitcoin network capacity overload will cause serious damage. We really should be ready before that. In the bitcoin development mailing list, there are two people who have professional capacity planning experience, and both of them have
2015-08-17 09:17:38 Views: key words: Mike
related reading: Mike Hearn: internal contradictions in the enterprise prevent Google from accepting bitcoin
Yes, it's coming. The community is beginning to separate, and bitcoin is about to bifurcate: including software, and perhaps blockchain. The two sides of the split are bitcoin core and the micro variant program based on the same program, called bitcoin XT. On August 16, Beijing time, there is now a full version of bitcoin XT
this bifurcation has never happened before. I want to explain this from the perspective of bitcoin XT developers: it can't be said that it hasn't been communicated enough
bitcoin bifurcation, this topic may make many people curious, so this article is written for ordinary readers. It doesn't involve the knowledge that has been debated before
the original version of bitcoin was carefully arranged by Nakamoto, and has always been very clear. The debate is about growth. In 2008, he answered the first question about the design of bitcoin, saying:
visa processed 37 billion transactions in fiscal year 2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. So many deals require 100GB of bandwidth = 12 DVDs or 2 HD quality movies = about $18 of bandwidth at the current price
assuming that the bitcoin network reaches this scale, it will take several years. By then, sending two HD movies over the Internet may not be a big deal
at that time, he was more tired of bitcoin expansion than any of us. His plan is to make bitcoin popular from the beginning, and he knows that this success will change how people use his system. In 2010, he said, "it's good that we keep [blockchain] files as small as possible
the final solution will not care how big it (blockchain file) becomes
but now, while it is still small, keep it in a small state, and the growth of new users will be faster. When I finally implement client only mode, it's no longer a problem
"
in 2011, through a series of calculations, I expanded the expansion intuition of Nakamoto in detail: if bitcoin becomes so popular, will it completely replace visa? The answer is that his plan is credible - you don't need anything else but a computer, even if there's so much traffic. Before he left, I also implemented the model he talked about
it was Nakamoto's plan that brought us together. It has changed the lives of thousands of people around the world. Some of us give up our jobs, others devote their spare time to the project, others set up companies and even travel around the world. This is an idea that ordinary people can complete mutual payment through blockchain and create this global community
that's the vision I signed, and that's the vision Gavin Andresen signed, and that's the vision signed by millions of developers, founders of startups, evangelists, and users around the world
and this vision is now in danger. In recent months, it's clear that a small group of people have completely different plans for bitcoin. These people have never really understood Nakamoto's intention because they are worried about success, if the technology has never been improved, if people can't run bitcoin on their home computers? Doesn't this make bitcoin move away from centralization and more like banking? What if people start to rely on bitcoin, even if it's imperfect
now, Nakamoto has chosen to disappear, and they want to make a major change: substantially increase transaction costs, end support for mobile P2P wallets, give up unconfirmed transactions, and many things that have never been found in the project's founding documents
the so-called lightning network, which is about to be promoted as a substitute for Nakamoto's design, does not exist. The white paper describes that it was announced earlier this year, and if it can be realized, it will be a huge departure from the bitcoin we know and love. Pick one of the many differences, and a bitcoin address won't work. What they will be replaced with has not yet been worked out (because no one knows). There are many other surprising pitfalls that I mentioned in another article. What will it eventually proce to make our existing bitcoin network better? It is still extremely unclear
what happened to the free market
in theory, none of this should be a problem. Lightning network is built on the blockchain, but it needs a rather trivial upgrade process to achieve the best function. Of course, people are willing to explore this direction, which is entirely possible. If the jobs they set up are better than the existing ordinary bitcoin network, then the market will choose their way, if so... It is fair competition for them! The current design of bitcoin is unlikely to be the final version for payment. This is a reasonable imagination, one day it will be eliminated in the competition, or enhanced by something else
but our system is working today. It has an ecosystem, including developers, exchanges, wallets, ATMs, books, applications, conferences, and many people have learned how it works
if there was a free choice, would people decide to move to a completely different system
we don't know, but the people who are pushing these things don't want the market to make a decision. That's what happened
a long time ago, Nakamoto set up a temporary "mixed brand assembly computer": he limited the size of each block to 1 MB. He did so in order to keep the blockchain in a small state in the early days, until we now call it the creation of SPV wallet (that is, what Nakamoto calls "client only mode"). As mentioned above, when the time comes, it can be adjusted. It has never been said that it is permanent. In the end, it becomes irrelevant. In 2011, I wrote the first SPV tool with my respected colleague Andreas schildbach, and we built the first and most popular Android wallet together. Since then, SPV wallets have been used on major platforms. Therefore, Nakamoto's reasons for this temporary restriction have been solved a long time ago
with the continuous growth of bitcoin, its blocks are also growing. Reasonable traffic forecasts show that the block will reach the current system limit sometime next year, at the latest in 2017. Another bubble or pressure cycle will force us to exceed that limit before, and the result may not be beautiful.
so it's time to raise the upper limit, or delete it completely. That's our plan, and the problem starts: those who don't want to see bitcoin expand have decided to postpone the process. They saw a beautiful, one-time opportunity to forcibly transfer bitcoin's predetermined path to a completely different technological trajectory. They don't know what this alternative design will be, and of course they haven't built it yet. But it doesn't matter. They believe that by blocking the growth of the blockchain, they can "motivate" (that is, force) the bitcoin community to switch to different things, something more in line with their personal technical taste
why restrict blockchain
so far, I haven't explained much about these people or who they are. I think it's a very time-consuming and laborious thing to name names in this article, and it seems to be futile in the end. Presumably those who care about this matter already know it, and those who don't know it can't recognize the people who are involved in it
I just want to say that they are very few people who have access to the bitcoin core code base, or those who are convinced by their arguments
therefore, we will not discuss these arguments here, which has been too much. Gavin and I have written articles to analyze the questions raised by everyone to refute them. Sometimes the answer is some common sense, some will be more in-depth, need more work, such as network simulation
the best place to understand these controversies is in Gavin's blog. I hope to find a link to a collection of opinions similar to those refuting Gavin's point of view, but none of them
to sum up, in the long and hard debate, several different opposition groups:
if bitcoin approaches this limit, we will be stimulated to create something better
the limit should be raised, but it is not ready (the actual time is not specified)
if bitcoin is expanded and becomes more centralized, it will no longer be bitcoin< Other people: if the objections you support are not listed above, please check Gavin's blog and find out the answer
the first point may become a reality one day, but it is not comparable with the theoretical system on paper. But no one who has seen any alternative solutions on the table thinks they can be implemented within 12 months (see another example in the last paragraph, for example)... Even assuming they are better. This is also an example of the nirvana fallacy:
the nirvana fallacy refers to the name of the informal fallacy of some unrealistic and idealized substitutes for something more practical. It can also refer to the tendency to think that there is a perfect solution to a specific problem, so it is also called perfectionism fallacy
it's obviously advantageous to create an imitative dichotomy for a current choice. But it's also totally incredible. One who uses the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. According to this fallacy, the choice is not between real-world solutions. One is a realistic solution, and the other is an impractical solution, which is the "better" choice between the two
the answer to the second objection is too vague. It is reasonable to believe that the overall upgrade of each bitcoin node may take one year, and the actual bitcoin network capacity overload will cause serious damage. We really should be ready before that. In the bitcoin development mailing list, there are two people who have professional capacity planning experience, and both of them have
7. There are three types: application type, payment type and security type. Most of them are applied tokens. Singapore has other regulatory policies for securities and payment.
8. According to Blizzard's setting, Warcraft uses five farmers to collect gold, and more than five will be idle population
hope to adopt
hope to adopt
Hot content