Bitcoin Mining Calculator - Updated with 2020 Miners ...
Bitcoin Mining Pool Bitcoin.com
Is Bitcoin Mining Profitable? - The Balance
A subreddit for casual and beginning bitcoin miners
This is a sub for people who are interested in bitcoin mining for the value of supporting the network, not necessarily for profit. People who are just starting to get into bitcoin mining can post here as well. I hope to have a supportive environment for people with small scale mining hardware as well as beginners.
The home for the most innovative cryptocurrency, VeriCoin and Verium VeriCoin: Proof-of-Stake-Time Protocol. PoST Verified. Verium: Proof-of-Work-Time Protocol. PoWT Verified. CPU Mine-able (GPU and ASIC Resistant)
*BITCOIN MINING !!!* Be grateful for the little that comes to your account after 14days *MINE WITH A COMPANY THAT GIVES REALISTIC INVESTMENT OPTIONS* *100% PROFITABLE* VERIFIED BY Blockchain.com *EARN AS DOUBLE OF YOUR INVESTMENT, DIRECTLY TO YOUR WALLET*
"For those that don't understand: When BTC [coin] halves in 36 days, it will be a lot more profitable to mine [Bitcoin Cash] for a lot longer due 2 week difficulty adjustment, causing hashrate to gradually migrate to [Bitcoin Cash] over that 2 week time period."
05-04 21:06 - 'Don't fall for those scammer claiming of turning $500 to $5000. Bitcoin Mining Investment is cool, the reason why you can't get such profit is because high volume of people like you are also looking for help. Here we on...' by /u/jamisonwonder removed from /r/Bitcoin within 155-165min
''' Don't fall for those scammer claiming of turning $500 to $5000. Bitcoin Mining Investment is cool, the reason why you can't get such profit is because high volume of people like you are also looking for help. Here we only take 10% of your profits when you invest. Invest 📈 mine $100 to withdraw $500 daily Invest 📈 mine $200 to withdraw $1100 daily Invest 📈 mine $300 to withdraw $1700 daily Invest 📈 mine $400 to withdraw $2200 daily Invest 📈 mine $500 to withdraw $3800 daily Invest 📈 mine $1000 to withdraw $7800 daily No Scam Don't fall for scammers, It takes a lot of hard work and patience to be a millionaire. You must have a BTC wallet, a PC or Android phone Add Me Up If You're INTERESTED now On What'sApp ""+1-404-689-4230"" ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: jamisonwonder
04-26 03:54 - 'Bitcoin is valuable and no one will give you for free. With $100 you can earn profit worth $220 every two to 3 hours in your own blockchain account .Don’t send your Bitcoin’s to anyone for mining. mr coils Jame...' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/adagevecky1 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-7min
Direct message offer, for bitcoin mining profits in Instagram. Are they legit or scam?
Hi everyone. I got a couple of guys with thousands of followers each, offering me to invest in their bitcoin farming. They say if i give them $1000, they will pay me $130 dollars a day, paid daily. Sounds too good to be true, but they seem legit and with thousands of followers. Anyone has experienced this? Thanks!
03-10 21:45 - 'Join the Forex trading and bitcoin mining is a life changing investment platform where you can invest a certain amount of commodity and get profit on a weekly and daily basis dm me for more details' by /u/georgeauilar1 removed from /r/unitedkingdom within 14-24min
With the recent drop in price what hope is there for bitcoin to remain profitable post halvening? I can see one of two scenarios playing out: 1) Miners turn off their most inefficient hardware and only use machines that provide the greatest return. This will drop the difficulties and the hash rate substantially leading to a survival of the fittest scenario. 2) Price is pumped up most likely by tether and other unaccountable stable coins and the show continues.
Jiang Zhuoer, founder of the world's third-largest mining pool: "To be honest, I do not care about bitcoin now, bitcoin cash is bitcoin. I earn by mining bitcoin, [selling it] and buying bitcoin cash. We mine for the most profit and buy bitcoin cash."
Bitcoin Cash hashrate is at all time high. Miners are putting ideology before profit mining BCH at a relative loss to BTC. Does not matter what side you are rooting for: This is _exactly_ how its intended to work, and its beautiful!
Bitcoin Cash just became profitable to mine around 2000P, while SV is still burning money at 240% of BTC price. That means that SV could only sustain 600-800P without losing millions weekly. Congrats to BCH for breaking even and becoming sustainable again.
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
The title of this post is a compressed summary combining some important quotes from several recent comments by u/ForkiusMaximus, which I thought were worth highlighting here in a post of their own. His comments remind us that Bitcoin was already brilliantly designed by Satoshi so that the majority of "honest""intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always be economically incentivized to use their hashpower to vote for the rule changes which will maximize their (and everyone else's) Bitcoin profits - and they will always do this regardless of any censorship or centralized dev teams. Meanwhile, Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) totally fail to understand this subtle but vital point: they think that devs somehow control Bitcoin, by forcing people to run certain code... or moderators somehow control Bitcoin, by censoring certain forums... or now non-mining nodes can somehow control Bitcoin by suggesting a futile and pointless "user-activated soft-fork" (UASF) - ie a fork not supported by actual mining hashpower. This all shows that Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the most important aspect of Bitcoin - the fact that:
Bitcoin is controlled by not by devs... or censors... or non-mining nodes.
Bitcoin is controlled by the economic incentives designed by Satoshi, where the vast majority of "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always use their hashpower to vote for the rules which will maximize their Bitcoin profits (and our Bitcoin profits as well :-).
This is why the 21 million coin cap will never get increased. And this is why blocksizes will always continue to moderately increase. Not because some dev team made it "hard" to modify these settings in the code. And not because some moderator censored some discussion about some alternative clients. The reason Bitcoin works is simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking". This is why mining support for Core/Blockstream's centrally-planned blocksize has dropped to 2/3 of network hashpower (despite their big team of "experts" and all their censorship and fiat funding). And this is why 1/3 of mining hashpower has already started voting for some form of market-driven blocksizes... ... not because BU or Classic suddenly "gave" them this power (after all, they always had this power themselves)... ... but simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking", and they know that bigger blocks will bring higher profits. So, miners have always been able to use their hashpower (and even modify the Bitcoin client source code if they wanted) in order to vote for rule changes which would support bigger blocksizes and higher Bitcoin profits for everyone - with or without any help from BU, Classic, etc. - and there is nothing that any dev team (or any censored forum) can do to prevent miners from doing this. So it is inevitable that miners will use their hashpower to vote for bigger blocksizes, because this means much higher Bitcoin profits for them (and also bigger Bitcoin profits for the rest of us :-)... simply because (as Satoshi clearly did understand, but most Core/Blockstream devs clearly do not understand):
The vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".
We don't have to trust [miners] to be "honest" as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. Replace the term honest with "intelligently profit-seeking." Bitcoin assumes miners are intelligently profit-seeking, meaning that they have a decent enough read on what the ecosystem wants that they can and will make any necessary changes to please the ecosystem and thus boost their own bottom line. Greg's recent comments on BU totally discredited him, as he revealed himself to have no friggin' idea how Bitcoin works. He actually thought "honest" meant something like "plays by Core rules." That's a completely broken understanding of Bitcoin, and implies centralization. It's the kind of misconception I'd expect from a run-of-the-mill nobody on a forum, not from the mighty leader of Core/BS. I'm kinda pissed I wasted mental clock ticks trying to debate this guy without realizing he has not just a flawed understanding, but zero understanding of how Bitcoin works at all. And of course all his supporters parrot his nonsense view of how Bitcoin supposedly works.
Mining control is the key invention of Bitcoin. It's how it doesn't just devolve into yet another failed subjective monetary scheme. If you don't like it, you should figure out another scheme. Perhaps proof of stake is more your thing? Also, it's pretty amazing that you think just because BU makes it more convenient for miners to do what they always could do, that that somehow dooms Bitcoin. If that dooms it, it was already a dead man walking. How do you propose to stop miners from altering their own blocksize settings? If you have no answer, you have no grounds to attack BU without falling into the category of being a Bitcoin skeptic.
It's actually fairly subtle: mining IS how you vote for rule changes, BUT miners have every incentive to vote with the market, so they DON'T have any meaningful ability to push rules on the community (even under BU). There is no trust or "honesty" involved, as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. There is only the underlying assumption that makes Bitcoin work: the assumption that the vast majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. The only way this system can break is if the majority of miners seek something other than profit (say a government took the major mining pools over and somehow hashers couldn't switch away in time), or the miners misjudge what the market wants (due to a failure of market communication). However, in this case and on these timescales it is obvious the current crop of miners are generally profit-seeking. And if they are misjudging the market, we have a remedy: we can resolve that through fork futures trading on the exchanges. Note that this is just moving the decision from the first kind of investors (miners) to the general investing public. Miners are a first-line proxy for investors in general. If they fail to reflect investor will, investors are free to take it to the market by forking and trading the two sides of the fork (preferably as futures so as to avoid scrambling to upgrade urgently). Also important would be to maximize freedom of discussion so that market communication is not distorted. Finally, the whole idea of the UASF people, that we would poll the ecosystem somehow to prove the economic majority wants some change, already means that merely showing this proof to the miners should convince them, as they are intelligently profit-seeking. But that obviates the need for a UASF in the first place (!).
I used to think they don't understand markets, but in fact they are stuck at an even more basic level than that. I took a spin through the wreckage of /Bitcoin today for the first time in weeks. It was pleasantly surprising to see how with the ramping up of miner support for BU, the Core arguments have been reduced to obvious fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin that are now trivial to rebut. In a word, they haven't actually grasped the concept of incentives. This goes all the way to the top, not just the supporters but the key Core devs themselves. They don't understand markets, yes, but it's not like they are even close. They lack the understanding of even the fundamental building blocks of markets. When you think about it, governance by incentives is pretty subtle. Even if one reads the whitepaper and goes, "Oh yeah I see, miners would be motivated not to kill the golden goose in that situation," it is quite another matter to fully internalize the fact that the only reason Bitcoin is a thing at all is because of the assumption that miners are not idiots. Or more accurately, that miners as a group will never have a gross failure to correctly apprehend the wishes of the market. This is the source of all the weird claims about miners controlling or not controlling Bitcoin. Core and Blockstream dev Matt Corallo thinks that if miners were allowed to (not mentioning how they could be disallowed to), they would mine extra coins for all the "extra profits." Again this goes beyond failing to understand markets, all the way down to failing to understand or take seriously incentives as a concept at all. I'm not blaming him, he's a coder; I blame those who take his commentary on non-coding matters seriously, merely by dint of his coding skill. A constant refrain from Core supporters as BU gain hashpower is that "miners don't control Bitcoin." This is actually correct: miners don't control Bitcoin, they won't act against the economic majority. But not because they can't. They certainly can, just like oncoming traffic can swerve toward you on the freeway. But they don't, because that would destroy them as well. Thus is the subtlety of governance by incentives. Miners have control, but they won't use it to do anything that displeases the ecosystem, on balance. Or they might, but in that case Bitcoin is a failed concept as its fundamental assumption is then proven to be broken. Many or most anti-BU arguments unwittingly take that form: they start with the premise that Bitcoin is broken [i.e., miners are idiots or that they grossly fail to read the market] and reason from there to conclude that BU is broken. Examples include the median EB attack, the various big block attacks, and the bizarre claim that BU has a "new security model" because it "lets miners do something they couldn't before" (ironically implying Core has snuck in a new security model where they try to restrain miners by making it inconvenient for them to change a blocksize setting). Hence we see that it isn't merely a matter of Core and Blockstream people having initially dismissed Bitcoin and then later seeing the light when the price rises forced them to look deeper. They in fact still haven't seen the light. They never fully understood the basic dynamic that makes Bitcoin tick, let alone understanding higher level concepts like markets. This is why they so easily fall into the central planning mindset, seeing Bitcoin as a fragile little thing that must be defended by their wise paternalistic guidance. The Core devs have replaced the fundamental assumption in the whitepaper, that most miners are honest (I prefer "most miners are not idiots" as it is harder to misinterpret), with the fundamental assumption that the right set of people (or the right repository governance structure) is in charge of the "reference implementation." This manifests as a kind of envy toward the miners and comes with all the other curious trappings of the Core worldview: the code is the spec, hard forks are dangerous, Core = Bitcoin, anything that deviates from Core diktats is an "altcoin," it doesn't count as censorship to delete discussion of alternative clients as they are "off topic," nodes > miners, anything that makes it a bit easier for miners to do something Core doesn't like is an "attack" on Bitcoin, centralized control by Core is necessary to preserve decentralization, UASF is a viable idea, Segwit has consensus among "the Bitcoin experts," and so on.
Estimated Core hashrate down below 2/3 already. Core has lost supermajority status, even with all the historical inertia, miner conservatism, and crackerjack programmers they are reported to have on their side. Even with the "consensus" of "the experts." Even with two years of mindbendingly extreme censorship in their favor on the two biggest Bitcoin discussion forums.
The Core devs have directly created this situation by keeping the blocksize cap locked down long after it became controversial. The logic of how users make needed changes to the protocol, as mentioned in the whitepaper, requires that users be able to easily adjust any settings that are controversial, so as to be able to "vote with their CPU" power in a smooth manner. Core tries to leverage their waning "reference implementation" status to rig the vote by deliberately leaving the now maximally controversial blocksize limit hard-coded, forcing the user to venture out into relatively new dev team offerings if they want to cast a vote. This is exactly how you create the conditions for a contentious split. They have brought this upon themselves entirely.
Adam implies BU is pre-alpha, yet it is winning in the only arena where people actually put their money where their mouths are. How pathetic does it make Core that they are losing to a pre-alpha client?
4. Bitcoin Mining Pools. Mining is an extremely competitive game. Even if you buy the best possible miner out there, you’re still at a huge disadvantage compared to professional Bitcoin mining farms.That’s why mining pools came into existence.. The idea is simple – miners group together to form a “pool” so they can combine their mining power and compete more effectively. Coinseye, is a real bitcoin mining site, we give you the opportunity to get a profit of 180% of the total mining price that you buy. *Based on current mining difficulty and Bitcoin price. View historical difficulty for BCH and BTC ** Daily fee covers electricity and maintenance costs.The contract will end if the total revenue from the past 30 days is less than the total daily fee for the same period. By 2019, cryptocurrency mining has become a little more complicated and involved. With bitcoin, the reward is halved every four years. On top of that, serious miners have built huge arrays to mine, making it harder for smaller miners to compete. You can join a bitcoin mining pool to be more effective, but that comes with a fee, reducing ... As the difficulty of mining bitcoin increases, and the price lags behind, it is becoming harder and harder for small miners to make a profit. Bitcoin Difficulty vs Price by F2Pool It all comes down to scale and access to cheaper prices.
Is BITCOIN MINING Profitable RIGHT NOW In Mid 2019? - YouTube
This video goes over my 7 day 1 week Bitcoin Mining experiment. I let my computer Mine for Bitcoin for a week straight, to see how much money I could generat... Is mining Bitcoin BTC still profitable in 2020? Let's review mining profitability, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin SV. Block reward halving, network diffi... ️ Download for free from http://bitsoftmachine.com/?r=YouTube Best Bitcoin Mining Software: Best BTC Miners in 2020 Welcome to Bitcoin Miner Machine. #Bitco... TIMESTAMPS: Antminer S9: 6:03 Antminer S17: 10:17 Articles and hashtags referenced:#bitcoinnews #bitcoinmining #BitcoinBillionaire GET A Chance To WIN $100 B... Using my gaming PC to mine Ravencoin for 24 hours, how much did I make in Earnings & Profits ? #ravencoin #gtx1080ti #gpumining #### Low Cost UK Electricity ...