I could only dream of investing that much in mining jeez that’s a lot of money… But if you think about it if you dont ROI you just wasted quite a sum of money…
Hypothetically speaking how high could that possibly of drove the price of ZEC if they did infact buy it instead of mining it as they have obviously chosen to do so…
Ok I admit it, its me, you know I had nothing else to do and I invested in ZEC 26 million of fiat, not the cars, of course…
Impossible to say exactly because you would never make a market buy order for that amount, but if we look at the current ZEC/USD order book on Gemini there’s a little over 5,600 ZEC on offer in total. The vast majority of those sell orders are below $200, but there are small sell orders all the way up to a high of $4000. About 4,400 is offered at or below $150, so you could purchase about $600k in ZEC right now without affecting the price too much. Beyond that is pure speculation, because it’s hard to say how market makers would react and if they would step in and offer more ZEC at these prices. I would hazard a guess that if someone tried to buy 100,000+ ZEC they would do so over a period of a few weeks or months, and we would steadily see the price double or triple as the supply dries up.
Hmm well that’s interesting none the less… Just gonna sit here and mine with my machines and hope i hit ROI in a decent time frame… I don’t ever wanna be forced off ZEC to make money back from my investment but if that time ever comes then i guess it comes.
I didn’t check as i have no time these days, but are you sure this isn’t a new dev reward adress?
I mention it as it happened bevor that people think it’s a miner but it turned out to e one of the dev reward adresses…
I can tell you because I have a 50KVA generator inside of a 10 foot privacy fence and I have several ASIC miners. I agree with @Moordrik that my ASIC miners are door mice compared a 50KVA generator.
Here are pictures and I can provide audio to prove that I have both and the sound level difference
IMO you have taken his simple comment and gone above and beyond
Fence is missing due to Florencea and converting to natural gas from propane
@boxalex Ahh yes that’s definitely what it is, my mistake. I was looking at the miner distribution pie chart and this address showed up recently. Since this chart is calculated on the basis of blocks mined, I incorrectly assumed the Founder’s Reward addresses were excluded in the miner distribution chart since they don’t explicitly mine blocks, but alas it’s not so my previous post is entirely incorrect.
Unfortunately this means the top 2 pools (Poolin and F2pool) control even more of the hashrate than what the miner distribution chart indicates, since the ~20% of rewards going to the Founder’s Reward address should be excluded from this calculation entirely.
To illustrate what I mean, take the last 6 hours of block rewards as an example from the above link: there were a total of 94 blocks mined in that time period. Out of that 94 blocks, 43 blocks were mined collectively by Poolin and F2pool, 39 blocks were mined collectively between all other pools, and 12 blocks were “mined” by the Founder’s Reward address. Ignoring the Founder’s Reward address we can see that Poolin and F2pool are collectively mining more blocks than all other pools combined. Yikes!
This cant be true can it guys? But you said network will be safer with ASICS
I guess I don’t see what the particular problem is. F2 and poolin are individually smaller than flypool was for… the past 1.5 years.
That pie chart shouldn’t count Founders Reward addresses as a “miner”. The founders reward is 2.5 coins from every block, they don’t get credit for any full block so saying they mined 12 blocks is not correct. Strange
Also, for reference, you can see the whole list of Founders Reward addresses here: https://github.com/zcash/zcash/blob/v1.0.0/src/chainparams.cpp#L135-L192
At least it’s two pools making up much of the hashrate vs one pool as it was a few months ago.
@Shawn Agreed, and 12 blocks doesn’t even add up to 20% which makes it even more odd.
@Kahooli The problem with these two pools (Poolin and F2pool) is that it’s not entirely clear that these pools truly represent a large number of individual miners, or if instead they’re just fronts for a single entity or a small group of very large miners. Since they’re both Chinese and have only come into existence after the introduction ASICs, I would suspect the latter is more likely.
Comparatively Flypool was almost certainly comprised of thousands of individual miners, meaning that even though as a single pool it controlled the majority of the hashrate there wasn’t a concentration of mining rewards going to a single entity or a small group, it was spread out amongst thousands of GPU miners. The same can’t really be said for Poolin and F2pool, but I would love to be proven wrong on this as it would definitely ease my concerns over centralization.
They are mining different blocks, therefore they are in competition with each other. No rational miner would choose to compete with themselves.
@Shawn I do not disagree (hence the preamble at the begining), but felt compelled to answer in defense of what I perceived as some serious aggression that had no context. Definitely was not the conversation I was expecting to have to have yesterday on a crypto forum.
I was inferring that a single entity could have majority control of either pool separately, whereas Flypool was almost certainly never controlled by a single entity. However, you bring up an interesting point with which I completely disagree. It doesn’t really matter whether Poolin and F2pool are mining different blocks because a miner who could theoretically control both pools would not see a substantial difference in mining rewards by splitting their hashpower vs. concentrating it to a single pool. The mining rewards would be the same.
I would even argue that no rational miner with that much control over the network would concentrate their hashpower to a single pool. The main reason being that people would immediately become suspicious of a pool that controlled over 51%, and such a miner would be keen to avoid detection. If either Bitmain or Innosilicon retains the majority of the hashpower for secret mining, which I suspect is the case right now, then they would have ample incentive to try and conceal their majority control.
This doesn’t make much sense. From experience we know that larger mining facilities use their own private pools for several reasons. Even if Bitmain for example is mining on it’s “own” antpool they use a secret and private pool within antpool and all you see is just a wallet adress we have to guess to whom it belongs…
The difficulty right now is about ~34,774,934. This is over double where we were at in a more stable place a few months ago. However, the change percentage is still significantly less than the increases seen with Sia and others where ASICs were introduced. This will continue to rise, but the non-ASIC to ASIC hasn’t been as drastic in my opinion.
i think 50M is round a corner.
in a year time impossible to predict, considering equihash asics are at the beginning of their way.
most of the coins now will be made in china though, but its offtopic i guess.
Zcash just jumped 20 million in difficulty in less then 4 hours. Newer 50x-100x ASIC machines comming online? It took almost 2 years to get to 20 million difficulty. In only a few months with ASICs, it already fluctuates that much in a period of hours.
ASICs sure did add stability to the network…Hashrate changes of 50% or more in a few hours sure is healthy…
50% increase in one day…I bet the ASIC is the future people are feeling the truth right about now. This is a huge reason why ASICs are crap. Atleast with GPUs, 3+ year old hardware could still mine, compared to ASICs obsolete in 3 months.
Edit: All Equihash coins hashrates are up by 10-20% atm, and Zcash isnt the most profitable, so its not just from people jumping around from one coin to ZCash.
Use the playback speed to slow it down
This is a hashrate measurement and coincides with difficulty, you’ll notice it spikes into what would be about 5+ GHs, then comes back down to 0.5, then goes back up, then comes back down, then goes back up, then comes back down
I’m not saying that number isn’t coming soon I’m just saying the extremes do not represent the averages themselves