same here, seems we are on the next shipping announcement
here what a guy posted on another forum about his Z9 that arrived:
Flypool works very well for ZEC.
Not a single rejected share in the last hour and ten minutes.
Chip temps are at 55c. Fan speed is 3000rpm.
Miner avg hashrate is 10.94KH/s. Waiting for the pool to give me an accurate average. But it’s working great so far.
Also, the frequency is adjustable in the miner settings. Default is 500. I’m not going to touch that yet.
Too soon just yet I think. But let’s watch it over the next 7-10 days as they come in and come online. Should be interesting to see how much of an impact they end up having since I don’t believe any solid confirmed number was ever given on how many were in batch 1.
To be fair, have in mind that only 77 units have been shipped and i mostly only the half of the arrived allready. So i would take the middle of that, let’s say 40 miners online at all.
I think as well that first some auto-profit-multi pools will compensate it. Means the more Z9 you get online the less from these profit based pools will switch on zec, just my assumption in all fairness.
For now it looks good, but it’s not the whole first batch, nothing to forget!
Lets look at what rules and regs Zcash is subject too. Its not a simple question:
U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) considers most Crypto a commodity, and this position was upheld by a federal Judge in March. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) considers some Crypto a security, specifically ICO’s. The IRS treats all Crypto as a Security at the moment.
Each Crypto coin will eventually be labeled (via a legal case, likely a Class action lawsuit), either a Security (Think IBM, Google, Intel, and regulated by the SEC) or a Commodity (Think Oil, Gold, Cotton and regulated by the CFTC). Most will be determined by Case Law and the “Howy test” for a security, 1946 US Supreme Court.
So to be safe ZCashCo should try to follow both SEC and CFTC rules and guidelines until they are defined. The one significant difference that could tip Zcash over to the Securities side is the existence of ZcashCo. Bitcoin has been ruled a Commodity but has no central company behind the coin, unlike Zcash. Therefore, ZcashCo, Officers, developers, and Employees should follow SEC and CFTC rules in any public statements or opinions. As such, the clear statement of Zcash being “ASIC Resistant” and maintaining said “ASIC Resistance”, intentional or not, could eventually receive scrutiny by the SEC and or CFTC if these statements turn out to be false. While Zcash Company has smartly created the foundation to limit legal exposure to the Zcash company, it is not a perfect isolation. A foundation did not isolate Tezos and they currently have several Class Action Lawsuits.
If Zcash is deemed a commodity it still must abide by CFTC rules modeled after the SEC rules:
Final Rule 180.1
, which is modeled on Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, broadly prohibits manipulative and deceptive devices and contrivances, employed intentionally or recklessly, regardless of whether the conduct in question was intended to create or did create an artificial price.
BTW: This also includes Volunteers AKA(Sean) as the USDL Fair Labor Standards Act forbids Volunteers to for-profit private sector employers. So in the case of a Class action suit, Sean would be reclassified as an employee, then any and all public statements made by him would fall under SEC and or CFTC rules.
Just a few case examples below: In each case the suit is about WHAT the organization said or promoted.
Tezos foundation and Tezos project:
[see Case Nos. 3:17-cv-6779-RS; 3:17-cv-6829-RS; 3:17-cv-6850-RS (all in the Northern District of California) and Case No. 6:17-cv-1959-ORL-40-KRS (in the Middle District of Florida)]
The plaintiffs alleged that because of an internal dispute between the Tezos founders and the Tezos Foundation that was established to conduct the Tezos ICO, the Tezos project was delayed and the futures price for the Tezos token fell, losing nearly 50 percent of its value.
Nano and key members of its core team:
See Alex Brola v. NANO et al., 1:18-cv-02049 (E.D.N.Y. filed April 6, 2018)
Brola alleges that he opened an account at BritGrail for the primary purpose of investing in and exchanging a cryptocurrency called XRB, upon investment solicitations and specific instructions and representations of safety and security made by NANO representatives. Id. at *2. Brola further alleges that NANO publicly promoted BitGrail as a safe and reliable place for XRB holders to stake and exchange their XRB, and XRB holders relied on that endorsement by NANO in choosing BitGrail as their exchange. Id.
Ripple Labs, XRP and Ripple’s CEO, Brad Garlinghouse
See Coffey v. Ripple Labs, Inc, et al., CGC-18-566271 (Superior Court of California filed May 3, 2018)
According to the class action complaint, 20 billion XRP (20% of the total XRP supply) were given to the individual founders of Ripple with the remaining 80 billion XRP (80% of the total XRP supply) being retained by Ripple to sell to secure funds to be used for “company operations and [to] improve the XRP Ledger.” Statements made by Ripple blur the lines between Ripple Labs’ enterprise management business and XRP, efforts made by Ripple to list XRP on Coinbase and Gemini to increase the perceived value of XRP and limiting the supply of XRP available to the public to drive up prices.
Centra Tech, Inc., and the individuals involved in the Centra ICO:
see Rensel v. Centra Tech Inc., et al., 17-cv-24500-JLK (S.D. Fla.)
In this complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the sale constituted an unregistered offering and sale of securities. The complaint also accused the defendants of misleading investors about the nature of its relationship with Visa and MasterCard, as well as listing fake team members on its website.
There are many more examples. In the end each coin will be defined independently and via case law. As case law builds a foundation for cryto assets then the picture will gradually become more clear. Until then, expect many more class action suits in the cryto world.
First, ASIC resistance from a legal standpoint, does not mean ASIC proof. Equihash was chosen because at the time, it was considered ASIC resistant. It turns out that Ethash is more ASIC resistant, but also did not prevent a more specific ASIC from being developed. It has become clear that a truly ASIC resistant hashing algorithm may not exist. An ASIC might be being developed for CryptoNightV7 right now. There will always be the potential for hardware that is more specific for a given application. GPUs are actually ASICs, just more general graphics-based cards with a wider application.
Also, the Zcash company never committed to guard against ASICs over the long term. It was an original lofty goal - which we all have - but not a legally binding, ongoing requirement. Things change with time, and allowing the potential for a company to secretly develop an ASIC might be much more damaging to Zcash. I can’t think of anything worse for miners than them getting 50% reduced rewards because of some secret hardware taking a disproportionate coin distribution. At least with the current situation most of those miners can purchase the ASIC from a company willing to sell it.
Further, the Zcash foundation is a separate entity than the Zcash company. There is nothing misleading about the process that the Zcash foundation is going through. They are doing research and will come out with the best course of action, whatever that may be.
Bottom line: if you’re fishing for a legal basis for negligence or wrongdoing over the term ASIC resistance, you won’t find it.
Disclaimer, these are my own opinions and I don’t represent the Zcash foundation or the Zcash company.
How old is equihash …3 years ?
So bitmain needed 3 years to develop ASIC for equihash …so with regular updates like monero on 6 months they will not even try again.
Also this are all old algos from Crypto beginnings and now you can make really ASIC resistant algo that gives zero advantage to ASIC.
So staying away from ASIC is easy…there is only a will needed.
Now that who received that 77 units have giant advantage over other 100 000 miners off Zcash.
Also using ASIC lock you in using same Algo forever …bitcoin even is oldest and most value coin will never be usable in real world because off high fees and slow transactions…it will be just value buy sell asset for exchanges and because it is ASIC locked they cant change it something usable for regular people.
Interesting point of view. I never mentioned “ASIC proof” as there is no such thing.
I have pointed out the legal implications in clear and plain English. I have pointed to the specific statues and regulations. I have given multiple examples of cases currently before the courts.
Your choice to interpret these as meaningless is your own opinion. I choose rather to stick with the facts and current case law.
Also you do not seem to understand this statement will have no legal bearing. You cannot be a “volunteer” to a for-profit private sector employer. In a court case you will be reclassified as an employee under USDL regulations and subject to SEC and CFTC rules and regulations.
Just as AOL Volunteers were reclassified as employees. This is an extreme case but if you understand case law it does set the precedent for similar cases and will be used as such by prosecuting attorneys. Sorry dont have time to find the link right now.
I don’t think what Zcash is doing about ASIC resistance is illegal but it’s highly unethical. Most people who bought GPU mining rigs did so with the assumption that Zcash would do its best to remain ASIC resistant. One would expect, at the very least, that Zcash would attempt a proof of work tweak after the introduction of ASICs, since this is the standard response to preserve ASIC resistance. If that fails, then perhaps they can argue that ASIC resistance is impossible. To do absolutely nothing is dishonest given prior statements.
The greater resistance of Ethash to ASICs than Equihash suggests that there are ways to make Equihash become more ASIC resistant. Increasing memory requirements seems like a good starting point.
The reason ZcashCo is all for ASIC is so that third parties (government e.t.c) can be tracking who exactly is mining Zcash through tracking of shipments of specialized mining hardware ASCI, Zooko Co think they are smart but I can guarantee you Zcash as no future without being mine-able on commodity hardware other than being a technology incubator whose technology will be appropriated by relevant coins.
So if ZcashCo makes Zcash a security when the founder’s fee is over in 2020 will it then be a commodity? There will be no more profit at that time. Can they be turned into a non-profit before then to avoid being labeled a security?
Shouldn’t in all fairness Jihan Wu’s response be added?
8h8 hours ago
Replying to @Codiox @zooko @BITMAINtech
No, Bitmain has no branch company in this country. It must be a fake company. We will ask lawyers to further investigate this shit. And when you @codiox address a point, pls do not add a “you know”, it makes you a little joker.
That’s exactly the way how all these fake news, rumours and myths arise. Someone posts some sh*t, others distribute it without the correction or proof that its not real and everybody begins to believ in whatever fake news…
I would correct that a bit into:
Most people who bought GPU mining rigs for their own business did so with the assumption…
It sounds good as an argument that someone bought, invested into mining rigs for Zcash, but nobody invested into Zcash but only into their very own businesses to provide paid services for literally 100’s of coins/projects …
What i would like to hear is what the real investors in Zcash have to say. Like the investors that have to get paid back, the share holders, stake holders, whoever that actually really invested into Zcash.
So far only we, a handfull of miners that have no real investment in zcash as miners think only we have to decide that issue. That’s mega strange for me …
Wait…this is a good find. Is he saying that Bitmain mining operation in the US is not actually Bitmain? That’s a big deal for someone to do that using their name…and has some serious legal consequences.
It’s about Venezuela…
Ahhh somehow my eyes went right over that and didn’t see it the first time.
that’s one of the problems i mentioned. Someone posts fake news, next one spreads it like here in the forum (not you!), next one reads only half but again spreads it wide, and nobody cares that the only person that should it know best says it’s a scam … Than a sudden you have a rumour everybody believes because 99% didn’t bother to read it to the end see the clear scam notification! Sad but true…
Clicking into the Twitter post, a person can read the thread of tweets and see any new replies.
Why would you reach this conclusion?
For this to be a “scam” someone has to be the victim and get “scammed”. So who is the victim here?
I find it hard to believe that a company pretending to be Bitmain has scammed the government of Venezuela into publicly issuing them a mining licence.
Bitmain have tweeted that their lawyers are looking into and that they don’t have a “branch”. This may indeed be true. Perhaps its a middle-man, or some related corporate entity and ownership was accidentally revealed – which they need lawyers to fix.