Bitcoin cloud mining legit
12 comments
Amoud bitcoin exchange
Bitmain will koparki the market with these miners, the difficulty will rise, and if it comes down to them way empty blocks they will do it carelessly. Bitcoin said paraphrasing "users have the power over the network, not the miners".
I think Bitmain will force the sia team to soft budowa. Taek explained this masterfully in his post of last year your ASICs where introduced. I agree on all accounts. I'm sure that this is roughest for the team because you guys are the most invested in it. I bought an A3. However, building hardware is not one of them. I have a feeling it'll work out in the end, and if not it's been an interesting ride.
The Sia developers are likely over extended and it's entirely possible if we don't bail them out there won't be a Siacoin for Bitmain, or anyone else, to mine.
By cutting out a segment, you're cutting out the larger segment After the soft fork, when Nebulous is on firmer ground, then Bitmain can develop new hardware and join the market. If they are actually more economic, you have nothing to way about. Bitmain is bad for business. They budowa essentially execute koparki hostile takeover of SC.
You think you want this fork, while in reality most the ASIC hashing power will support what you left behind and the SC bitcoin will be in major trouble. To be clear, I am for forking if the A3 miners turn out hostile, but we should not view their existence as a hostility.
This blend of communism and capitalism is extremely your for people and companies in the west to compete with. THAT is what happened. I think this is shameful behavior. They don't reject the A3 "just because they came out before you". They reject bitmain as a company for their behavior that's detrimental to the ideals of sia and crypto in general and their amoral greed.
There is a huge difference between taking a stance based on ideals and not allowing unaffiliated third parties to latch on to the project. I wasn't talking about owning an asic in and of itself, but about the cut the manufacturer takes and the way they go about making profit.
Covert asicboost bitmain owns the Chinese patent lets them cheat their customers, empty block mining, shipping broken hardware or not at all, mining their own operation while pushing bitcoin unlimited in an attempt to cripple small hashrate miners etc. Of course they're a company that needs to sell and make profit, but the way they go about it isn't exactly ethical or justifiable.
At least from a non-Chinese perspective. Can't believe Dev team even came up with such a crazy idea. Suicide it that happens!
Let's be honest about what happened here guys. The Sia team just got outplayed by a competitor who came to the market first. Everything else in this long statement is just trying to spin this. But I don't entirely blame the Sia team for getting beat. The blame also must be shared by the naiive SC1 buyers who were willing to put down money upfront on a miner that was 12 months away from a company that has never built an asic miner before.
Unfortunately, I am one of those people who got caught up in this asic mining hysteria. How foolish was I to think that a company that has never built a miner before and is having to hire a third party to design it would be able to compete against the likes of those companies that build asic miners as their core business.
Please don't take this as me insulting the sia dev team. I am sure they are awesome in their core competency i am even invested in the siacoin. Let this also be a lesson to those miners to carefully vet a company before shelling out money to them for something they don't have experience doing. And finally, this statement "So people who ordered Obelisk units will still be receiving hardware of substantial value" shows how little you know about the mining community.
We are not in it for the superiority of the design or the aesthetically pleasing features. We are in it for the potential to earn. What good is the superior miner if its earnings are slashed to a few dollars a day by the time we receive it. The single most important aspect of selling miners is timing of the release. The morally right thing for Sia to do at this time would be to refund the money for those that ask for it. Especially those who were promised exclusivity in Batch 1 and paid extra for that.
You made a mistake and we made a mistake. But let's correct it and regain the trust. You should equally know that money will not be refunded. It was even noted in the FAQ. The huge run up drew in attention from Bitmain and beat us to the punch. Very well thought out. The fact they picked on you is they are the big bully on the block. Why they picked on a utility coin is beyond me.
Bitmain IMO is kind of shady and just there to only make money and not care about people. The biggest issue with them is they end up making cryptocurrencies way too centralized - ie, Bitcoin. I hope Sia doesn't fall into the same fate. Guess what bitmain will. Are they the only ones that over saturated that market? I remember when the 1st batch of obelisks went on sale.
I considered but like mentioned there was always this risk. I think bitmain dropping the A3 made allot of people look at this coin again and wonder what they see in it.
This may have helped bring sia a breath of new life. While we need more competition in the asic market. If you want bitmain to not sell as many antminers complain to bitfury and tell them too sell to the public.
If you want bitmain to sell less ltc miners complain to innosilicon and tell them to lower the min to 1 miner. Really more damage than anything. Nice post as always Taek, and thanks a lot for sharing your view and asking the community for its opinion.
First, to Obelisk purchasers I agree with you this shouldn't be so bad. ROI will be longer, but I think the purchasers will be rewarded nevertheless. Nevertheless I think I should grant them the benefit of the doubt. This community is very tough and resilient. Lastly I would like to share some opinions about the potential softfork that could be introduced. I understand the Sia community need to protect itself against attacks. I understand and sometimes I even approve, the use of exceptional measures when the other choice is the chaos.
I appreciate that just the existence of this idea is powerful enough to avoid future conflicts, and the threat of using it is a powerful tool. However I would like to mention that UASF has its faults, the most important that 1 vote is not equal to 1 person.
A single entity can fire up virtual machines renting computing power overnight and affect the result. This happened during the scaling wars of Bitcoin last year. The same can be said about PoW voting, however the beauty of PoW is that the entity that wants to manipulate the results needs to invest in a expensive hardware that, if used for destroying a coin, will be a total loss for the attacker he ends up with worthless hardware.
Taek explained this masterfully in his post of last year when ASICs where introduced. In UASF voting, the attacker just needs to rent the computing power for a few weeks I simply don't have a solution to this dilemma. However as I have been these last days studying siafunds transactions to add some stuff to siastats, today I had a realization that I am not sure if it is a good or a bad idea.
A SF is a very technical and limited asset and expensive! Owners of SFs are well-versed Sia users, mainly long-term supporters, sometimes even contributors and developers. The interests of SF holders are totally aligned with the success of Sia.
I do not say let's delegate governance on them, but why not using them as a sort of consultative organ? I am all about democracy, but even advanced democracies have and had councils of elders for consulting. There are many examples in the past of this kind of organisms preventing disasters when a senate or an emperor was about to provoke a disaster. Not particularly for this case, but why not considering asking SF holders what do they think about difficult decisions in the future?
Not a binding referendum, but just a consulting. It would be easy to implement such a voting system that everybody can audit without implementing anything new in Sia: Obviously we would have to kindly request Nebulous to not voting, as they own the huge majority of them.
As I said, I am not sure if this is a good or a bad idea in the end, but maybe asking those that we presume are well-informed users can help understanding the vibe of the community about difficult questions. Nebulous owns a very large portion of them.
That's why I mentioned they should refrain from voting for this mechanism to work. So the census would not be SF but just the in circulation. My point is that if in the future Nebulous has difficult decision to make, they have the option of asking the opinion of the rest of SF holders, as their interest is perfectly aligned with the interest of the Sia project. Ok, since miners, regardless whether it is obelisk or A3 are so concerned about Siacoin's future and the health of the network, to create a win-win situation, softfork now to make any ASIC unworkable.
Once obelisks comes out, softfork back to ASIC friendly and everybody can contribute to the health of the network.