CPU

unthocks

So now the definition of ‘computer’ magically changes depending on your feelings? A hardware wallet literally has a CPU, memory, OS, firmware, and does cryptographic operations. That’s more ‘modern computer’ than your calculator. Stop coping, and buy more bitcoin instead of being loud idiot.

aafonsodias

* **On 51% majority deciding the chain:** *“Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.”* (Section 4, Proof-of-Work)

aafonsodias

You’re not entirely right saying I “don’t know.” Both points I made are in the original whitepaper: * **On 51% majority deciding the chain:** *“Proof-of-work is essentially one-CPU-one-vote. The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it.”* (Section 4, Proof-of-Work) * **On further splitting if needed:** Bitcoin already subdivides down to 1 satoshi (1/100,000,000 BTC). While the whitepaper doesn’t fix a final limit, it shows flexibility in transaction structure — *“there is never the need to extract a complete standalone copy of a transaction's history.”* (Section 9, Combining and Splitting Value)bitcoin Satoshi himself later clarified the protocol could support **smaller units** if demand required. So yes, majority hashpower rules the chain, and yes, BTC can be split further if needed.

HueyGTO

Parallax uses Ethash for PoW — there’s a CPU miner bundled in, and GPU mining will be totally viable from day one (lots of existing ETH PoW miners should work fine). The client is already implemented, and right now we’re focused on building traction so as many people as possible can run and mine at launch. Launch date + source code drop will be announced on @prlxchain. The client itself is based on geth, but with Bitcoin’s consensus rules integrated.

SherbetFluffy1867

In the early days of Bitcoin, running a node and mining were synonymous, but that hadn't been true for a very long time. You can mine without a node. Running a node today is useful related to mining only in the fact that you can use it to build your own block templates and use it to broadcast a PoW to the network if one were to be found. There is no "switch" on a node to begin hashing with it. Hashrate significant enough to use for mining Bitcoin would only come from a source utilizing ASICs, not from a CPU or GPU source.

OrangePillar

You can’t mine on a CPU.

CryptoDeepDive

> “A PoW chain could also just mine 90% of the total supply before offering the remaining 10%, like what?” Not really. Bitcoin wasn’t pre-mined — every block was mined publicly from day one. Anyone with a CPU could join. That’s the opposite of allocating 90% up front. The fact people didn’t mine then doesn’t make it unfair — it makes it early. > “Satoshi also mined an insane amount of BTC on some shit CPU right? He spent a meaningless amount of energy on creating it.” He mined under the same rules as everyone else. The early energy cost was low because difficulty was low. That’s how bootstrapping works. But it was still bound by the same open, energy based process as today. POS on the other hand distribution is often arbitrary or insider-heavy from the start. > “POS also requires real energy and real computation to function, right? Your energy argument makes no sense.” In POW, energy is the ongoing cost of security. Attacks require continuous, massive energy burn — it’s not recoverable. In POS, the “cost” is a one-time purchase of coins. Once you have them, you wield influence forever. Many times you don't even need to.spend anything to buy the coins. You just give them to yourself as a founder > “Holding the majority of the supply doesn’t let you dictate how the network functions lol.” POS gives whales structural control. If a small group of custodians or funds hold the majority, they dictate upgrades and censorship. In POW, no miner, no matter how big, can unilaterally change the rules — they can only propose blocks that the rest of the network either accepts or rejects. > “A 51% attack is the same in PoW and PoS.” Not true. In POW, you rent or build hashpower, and you bleed money every second you attack. Once you stop paying, the attack ends. In POS, if you ever reach 51% ownership, you own the network indefinitely. That’s a permanent capture, not a temporary risk. > “Security being independent from the coin is bad because attackers can just break any network they want without losing their entire investment.” It’s actually a strength. In POW, security isn’t hostage to bagholders. It is an open competition for energy. Attacking requires burning real-world resources, not just shuffling balances on a ledger. In POS, the richest automatically secure their control, and nothing stops exchanges holding user deposits from controlling consensus. The entire point at the end is that you are utterly wrong when claiming they are the same.

XysterU

This fictitious coin stuff is superfluous and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. A PoW chain could also just mine 90% of the total supply before offering the remaining 10%, like what? You do understand that Satoshi also mined an insane amount of BTC on some shit cpu right? He spent a meaningless amount of energy on creating it. You also understand that PoS also requires real energy and real computation to function, right? Your energy argument makes no sense. It's like you're saying the first Bitcoin mined has 99% less value than Bitcoin mined today because the BTC mined today requires 99% more energy to produce. Is that what you think? Holding the majority of the supply doesn't let you dictate how the network functions lol. You don't just pay X amount to increase block sizes. With a majority supply you could start acting maliciously, but this would just cause the value of the coin to crash and the network to split. You need to understand that just like BTC, other networks operate using software that sets the network parameters. By running the software, people are signalling their agreement with the parameters in that software. Holding a majority supply doesn't let you change how the network functions. And even if it did (it doesn't) you would need the entire network to agree to run with your new parameters. Someone holding a majority of funds is just a 51% attack just like it is in PoW when someone holds 51% of mining power. Also you're not justifying why netowork security being independent from the coin is a good thing? Is there better security as a result? Then how come Monero got close to being 51% attacked? The funny thing is that the 51% attack on Monero didn't require the attackers to buy Monero (thus driving the cost up, making it progressively harder to acquire the 51%). It also meant that the attackers didn't have to own a bunch of Monero that would then plummet in value once their attack succeeded. They literally just rolled up with a shit ton of additional CPU compute to destroy a coin that they don't care about (idk what their motives were). In this case the separation of security from the coin is bad because attackers can just break any network they want without losing the entirety of their investment in the attack. They bought CPU power but they can re-use it on other attacks or they can re-sell the CPUs. If monero was PoS, they'd need to buy 51% of the monero supply and then have their entire supply become worthless, losing their entire investment.

TheGreatMuffin

> if the hash rate goes up, that mean more miners or more powerful mining hardware, right? Yep > And do we know what share of total global computing power Bitcoin mining represents? It's not really comparable to "global computing power", as there is nothing being computed in bitcoin mining. It's more like a super dumb (but super efficient) guessing hardware running, it's not like your general CPU or GPU hardware. You can't do anything else with a bitcoin mining chip (ASIC) except mining bitcoin.

Dangerous_Boot_3870

Moore's law applies to CPU which are in every gaming console. It has nothing to do with flops or transistors.

xte2

Yes, at certain levels we are forced to show our hand, so for example, there aren't Gaddafi's billions disappearing from Belgian and Luxembourgish banks with no one (except very few) knowing anything; there isn't fractional reserve banking with which banks milk private wealth by creating money through loans. It's freer, but it's also tied to an IT infrastructure that is concretely less and less free: today the motherboard's EFI phone home, the CPU runs a small internal OS, and this is on PCs. If we extend to mobile, we have, shall we say, theoretical "freedom" on an OS that isn't free (because even Android isn't AOSP), so it's an "institutional" freedom but at the population level it's always illusory. Only if we impose universal open hardware and FLOSS, making it forbidden to sell non-open hardware, non-free and public software from the first commit to allow a community to form and oversee every project of interest, we can have substantial freedom. Today, Big Tech is clearly visible in cars. We buy a car, we are formal owners, but it can be blocked, its software, or nervous system, modified (updated) remotely behind our backs, and we don't have superior, more privileged access than the vendor. The car isn't truly ours. This, for me, must be very clear to everyone to avoid going from bad to worse.

StromGames

Yes. Decentralization is great. But a Mac mining is nothing. Not even a rounding error, compared to the current network hash rate. Bitcoin network (Sept 2025): ~600 EH/s 600 EH/s = 600,000,000,000,000,000,000 hashes/s (6 × 10^20) High-end Mac (CPU/GPU mining): ~5 MH/s 5 MH/s = 5,000,000 hashes/s (5 × 10^6) Difference: (6 × 10^20) ÷ (5 × 10^6) = 1.2 × 10^14 = The Bitcoin network is about 120,000,000,000,000 times faster than a Mac. Effectively 0.

Scary-Track493

Mining BTC solo on a Mac is basically like scratching a lottery ticket with a toothpick. You technically *can*, but you’ll never get anywhere. Modern Bitcoin mining is done with specialized ASICs that are millions of times faster than your Mac’s CPU or any GPUs.

DiamondHandsDarrell

From my understanding that's not what quantum computing is for or useful for. You can't just load up a miner app and let it run. It's not like comparing it to being a faster CPU/GPU/ASIC. It's purpose and use is for entirely different use cases. Just thinking out loud here, but it could be that mining pools are a bigger threat due to solo miners no longer being able to compete. The more solo miners there are, the more decentralized it is and the more difficult it is to shut the network down. The more centralized pools become, say eventually 10, the easier it gets to shut it down such as was done with the Pirate Bay when they were moving servers all over the place.

Objective_Digit

> Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Abstract A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. None of that precludes Bitcoin from being digital gold. And since you are fond of quoting from the white paper: >The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended. Again, why do you think the creation of new coins is called mining and not minting or printing? Why have a limited supply? Why have a diminishing reward akin to gold mining becoming harder?

phillipsjk

Originally the goal was fast, cheap, and irreversible electronic payments. > Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. > What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. - [Introduction to the Bitcoin Whitepaper](https://www.bitcoin.com/satoshi-archive/whitepaper/#1-introduction)

Axe_Raider

i recognize the pattern of transactions but i don't know how i would prove provenenance. also they could argue that i had the wallet running there which meant i had the mining running there (way back in the days you could CPU mine, yes really) which they argue means the coins are theirs.

Gambimrel

If quantum CPU come without us being prepared you think they will go for BTC? Brother you will have a whole lot of other problems trust me.

Praceu

Should I buy a new CPU and plug it in? My old pc has many apps from third party? I do have a MacBook but it wont work with this.

proff_bajoe

First, Thanks a lot for your curiosity, you put a lot of time into your analysis and I sincerely appreciate it. 1) You are right about sybil-resistance needing some form of commitment, but what I did was to use a very small VDF(sequential and non-parallelizable) as a proof of ability to compute which is the POC, nodes are then forced to compete to guarantee seats in a very small committee (max 100 seats) using "weights" derived from the VDF's. But for entry into the committee, instead of implementing "first come, take as much seats as you can" as some attacker can just use their computational power to take everything, The system is designed such that it's not too hard to guarantee one seat, but it get's exponentially harder to guarantee an increasing number of seats. The whitepaper goes into this detail step-by-step. 2) When I said price of execution remains the same, this is because the price is pegged to Work Units(CPU work cycles). prices don't just float around, but is matched to system throughput such that when demand rises, increased job push more minting to match goldcoin supply to demand (an economic model that rewards economic growth with new money). Likewise, when demand is low, minting slows or burning occurs to stabilize the system. The stability of execution price is simply a consequence of this dynamic. Also there are no oracles, this dynamic is done locally, the whitepaper goes into detail on this. 3) Unlike other systems, The marketplace does not require the entire network to re-execute every job, instead the small committee's (Whiterooms) that I talked about are the ones to execute each job. This is about a 100 weights corresponding to less than 300 nodes at least for one job. Given that there are no barriers to nodes (IOT, androids, desktop, ...), Scalability becomes very much has a linear relationship to nodes, (although throughput may pose some issues at very high traffic Millions of jobs/sec \[see whitepaper\]). For network problems and heterogeneous hardware, you are right which also feeds into the scalability issue stated above, but through the use of a RISC-V VM, and work being off-chain, I forsee the Marketplace protocol being very lean as long as we can build it efficiently. 4) The services layer is the source of jobs for the network. Also stalls(modular services) are Isolated at runtime, are stateless and deterministic functions. This removes all complexity from being in contact with the protocol. The real complexities comes from the logical workflow built on top of the stalls (Apps). So it may be a complex workflow with moving part, but it has no interactions with the protocol itself. it's like providing Lego blocks to a child to build whatever. as long as the lego blocks are strong in structure, anything no matter how complex can be built from it. I'd love for you to dig into the whitepaper which is not very technical, although not perfect, but can easily highlight what I've said. Yes to trying to solve all the hard problems, It's a revolution, Although I'm lucky they all fit together nicely, so yeah Thanks.

proff_bajoe

True, but that is why it has to be done locally. The marketplace is a network that assists your node, not entirely replace it. It assists it by allowing your node to offload some computation to the network to run in parallel with your main executable(like having extra CPU's). but for consensus to be reached, determinism must be enforced and that cannot be bypassed. But the marketplace has an application workflow that allows for the non-deterministic parts to be composed with the deterministic part in an easy way. But to fully answer your question, if a computation contains some parts deterministic and non-deterministic, the worker nodes can be made to skip that non-deterministic instruction call as a "Future"(promise-like object in rust). It then returns the call as part of the result to be handles by the node that initiated the job. So yes, those computation can still be offloaded given the node later handles the non-deterministic parts.

Cryptizard

That's not at all how PoW works. 1 CPU is worth jack shit on the Bitcoin network. You need specially designed ASICs.

UneverknowexceptMom

You just prove you don't understand the major difference between PoW and PoS. PoW : 1 CPU = 1 vote on the network PoS : 32 Token = 1 node on the network (eg. Ethereum) It's oversimplified but it means if ETF continue adoption, Blackrock (or other institution) will have decision power on PoS blockchain network by just holding token. Unlike BTC where you need miners and infrastructure investment to have a decision power on the PoW blockchain, not just holding token. If we push both system to their limits, it means ETH became centralize with most of validator nodes possess by some institutions with very few investment (you just have to possess the token and stack them). This mean institution can decide which transaction is valid or not. Back to the OP post, it's a law / regulation issue. I hope there will be a proper answer from authority on this topic.

Mr--Clean--Ass-Naked

Any BTC whale who bought 2009-2012 has way, way more influence on BTC than any billionaire can. Put into perspective, a CPU could have mined you thousands of BTC at the cost of... $20+ electricity bill? So yeah, BTC whales aren't "rich" until they actually pull out.... and $125,000 is a juicy time to pull out, they don't care about how "healthy BTC is" they know it'll go back up but yeah it will suck. This goes for stocks and everything else just my opinion

DegenDreamer

You'd have a horribly performing game and almost no BTC coming in from it. CPU/GPU mining of Bitcoin has been unprofitable for a long time. The only result you'll get is a mountain of 1 star reviews.

redhtbassplyr0311

With them knowing or hidden? If you're talking about in secret well then everything, ethics, trustworthiness, performance, legal risks. Even if you would be transparent then still performance is a huge issue on an already demanding video game. Then also the economics wouldn't even make sense mining Bitcoin on a gaming GPU is like ancient technology now compared to purpose built design Asics and miners otherwise. It's not going to be able to run both. Video games bring CPU's and GPU's to their knees and so does Bitcoin mining. The electricity cost would be extreme and hardware would fail sooner than later. I see nothing but cons actually

Alex_Nillion

When a user sends a question to nilGPT, the input is transmitted from the frontend (running in the browser) through the nilGPT backend to nilAI, which generates a response. Once the response is returned to the frontend, it is encrypted locally using a passphrase provided by the user. The encrypted data is then secret-shared and stored across three nilDB nodes. Local encryption ensures that even if all nodes were compromised and an attacker obtained all secret shares, no information about the user’s chat could be revealed. The reconstructed data remains encrypted and meaningless without the passphrase. At the same time, secret sharing ensures that no individual node can reconstruct the data even if the passphrase is leaked to the nodes. The nilGPT backend and nilAI both run inside nilCC, which operates within a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) on bare-metal servers. This setup ensures that no third-party cloud provider can access logs or outputs. Currently, we are deploying attestation reports from these TEEs and will release those very soon, covering nilCC, nilAI, and CPU/GPU components. With this release, it will be possible to independently verify that all components to which user data is exposed run inside TEEs.

Romanizer

Absolutely. Towards the end of 2009 there were up to a hundred users worldwide mining and each block would give 50 BTC + fees. Which means your account would grow in 50 BTC increments. OP saying he watched the account grow night for night implies he mined more than one block in a time where 50 BTC were not really worth letting your PC run for it. A regular household CPU at that time would easily mine 1,000-2,000 BTC per day as the whole year was at difficulty 1. In addition, there were no bank accounts frozen because of Bitcoin because no one bought or sold it, exchanges came later. That whole story doesn't make sense.

Few-Concentrate7085

oh... whoops! maybe I didn't mine them myself. maybe my white CPU whirring night after night was a total fabricated dream? idiot

IPconfigEARTH

You’re right about the block reward being 50 BTC at the time. 👍 But not everyone in 2009 was running full nodes and solving blocks. I wasn’t some pro-miner with rigs — I was just a 15-year-old kid messing around with a HUMBLE CPU wallet/miner that a random gamer told me about in a chatroom. I didn’t understand block rewards, halving, or how rare that window really was. I just saw decimals ticking up in my wallet and, after a short while, it added up to ~54 BTC. Then fear (and ignorance) got the better of me, and I deleted it. I didn’t share the exact mining details in my post for obvious reasons. Privacy. But the point isn’t whether it was 54, 540, or 5,000… it’s that fear made me erase something life-changing before I even understood what it was. That’s the ghost that’s followed me ever since — and what I explore in my book Bitcoins I Shift Deleted. I am sure we are in small numbers who have kept airgapped PC for 10 years!+ I still have bitaddress.org html bitcoin address generator and paper wallet generator. I may sound ancient 😅 - Not your keys, not your coins... And yes. I have to keep things simple for the masses. [kindle link](https://amzn.in/d/5GN8k2P )

albergio

Ok? But since you're just doing checksums for now, it's normal to have that amount of checks per second. It's not 6-7 billion address recover per second, so it's like saying "With my script, my CPU is able to do billions of simple math additions per second" which is valid for any script and any machine

m0Ray79free

In 2009-2012 I had around 100 to 170. I mined 100 on CPU. I spent all of them. Now I have 0. Why do you like to recall all that? Forget it. It's gone.

CryptoMaximalist

Monero's CPU mined RandomX and Bitcoin's ASIC mined SHA256 would not have any crossover in hashrate capabilities. Bitcoin would also be at least 20x more expensive to attack

YappingOldMan

Ok, ended up checking and seems on average it has been using about 73 Mb’s of RAM and very little CPU power.

pop-1988

It doesn't affect Bitcoin in practice because there are no Bitcoin miners close to 50% The mechanism being discussed - secretly mining a series of blocks and releasing them all as a "surprise" to replace the chain tip - is useful for a few reasons 1. it defeats Satoshi's white paper mining risk calculations, because those calculations assume competition for each block, one block at a time. See section 11 "Calculations" 2. it defeats the double-spend victim's "wait 6 blocks" strategy if the replacement chain tip is more than 6 blocks long The definitive example of this method is the 2020 BTG double-spend attack https://gist.github.com/metalicjames/71321570a105940529e709651d0a9765 The theft works by depositing BTG to an exchange, buying BTC, withdrawing BTC - all during the regular miners making 6 blocks per hour. At the same time, the thief uses 51% mining hashes rented on NiceHash to mine 2 hours of blocks faster than the regular miners, and in these 14 blocks spending the same BTG to themselves instead of depositing it to the exchange. Then release the 14 blocks to the BTG node network. The nodes automatically replace that much of the chain tip because the new tip is a longer chain The thief gets to keep the BTG, and also keep the BTC bought on the exchange This worked on BTG because * BTG is not SHA256, not ASIC-mined, is only GPU mined * GPU mining hashes are available for rent on NiceHash and similar hash broker sites * BTG's price and hash rate means it only costs $1700 per hour to rent 51% hash rate for BTG * the exchange (Binance) wasn't smart enough to wait 30 blocks after receiving the BTG deposit (now they are) None of those conditions apply to BTC, but it's possible in the future, after the BTC price bubble bursts --- To clarify the Monero discussion, it's not possible there either, because Qubic doesn't control enough miners' hashes, and because its miners will switch from Qubic to another pool to prevent Qubic having 51% The pool only controls its miners' blocks if the miners don't switch pools. Qubic's malicious attempt drives away its miners Also Monero is CPU mined, not GPU mined, costs much more than a few thousand per hour to overtake the network, and because Monero CPU hashes are not easy to rent on NiceHash (at least, it's not possible to rent 51%)

Ghant_

Any run of the mill computer CPU will work! >With RandomX implementation, the advantages gained by a select few affluent people is minimized, as if they invest in creating “ASICs” for mining RandomX, they will actually merely invent stronger, better CPUs, which benefits the world at large. https://localmonero.co/knowledge/monero-mining-randomx

xmrstickers

Has nothing to do with privacy coins. The scheme could be applied to any CPU mined coin. The real reason Qubic chose monero is because no other coin would allow him to embezzle block rewards without getting caught.

Ghant_

>unless they make their PoW mechanics incompatible with the BTC asics. They did, its called RandomX CPU mining algo. Asics can't be used to Mine XMR

RefrigeratorLow1259

Doesn't take much power as it is centralised! Only has 23 nodes all run by big corporations - The hardware requirements are massive! The hardware requirements for Hedera nodes are quite specific and depend on whether you are running a consensus node or a mirror node. It's important to note that you can't just run a consensus node; they are currently permissioned and operated by the Hedera Governing Council members. However, anyone can run a mirror node. Consensus Node Requirements The requirements for a consensus node are very high-end and are designed for enterprise-grade performance and security. These are not for a typical home setup. * CPU: A high-performance, multi-core processor (e.g., Intel Xeon or AMD EPYC) with a minimum of 24 cores/48 threads is required. There are also specific performance benchmarks (Geekbench, Passmark) that must be met. * Memory (RAM): A large amount of ECC Registered DDR4 RAM is needed, with a minimum of 256GB and a recommendation of 320GB or more. * Storage: A substantial and very fast storage solution is essential. The requirements include at least 5TB of usable NVMe SSD storage with high sequential and random read/write speeds (e.g., 2,000-6,200 MB/s sequential read). The use of RAID arrays (e.g., RAID 1 for the OS, RAID 0 or 10 for data) is recommended for redundancy and performance. * Network: A sustained, unmetered 1 Gbps internet connection is required to handle the high volume of traffic. The node must also be deployed in an isolated DMZ network with specific ports open.

DreamingTooLong

When bitcoin was under a dollar people were mining it with laptop, CPU and getting 50 BTC at a time if they successfully mined the next block. People were trading bitcoin for magic the gathering cards People were trading bitcoin for dark web drugs People were trading bitcoin to have a website built Nobody thought it was going to go to $1000 but it did at the end of 2013 and it did it again at the very beginning of 2017

slash_networkboy

First I have to tell you about this Dot-Com bubble thing called [eGold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-gold). So when BTC came out I was ridiculously jaded and didn't expect much. I was CPU mining back when block rewards were 50 BTC, got a couple blocks and bought a 1500 Hemi with the proceeds when it hit $100 because (and I quote) "Fuck that, I'm getting mine while I can before this blows up like eGold did!" I'm rather confident you can feel my regret at not hodling from there... but I do still have the truck (I bought it used BTW).

SirArthurPT

I'd been trying to say that all this time. Also he seems to totally underestimated RandomX. The best you can achieve is about 200 kH/s in an AMD Epyc 9xxx series. This CPU cost about as much as a small car, $20.000. So to achieve his desired hashrate, ~5 GH/s, he needs about 25.000 of these CPUs. This means at least 12500 dual CPU servers, lets assume Gigabyte MZ72-HB0, brand new goes to around $5000 each. So CPUs alone we are talking about 500 million USD, motherboards 62.5 million USD, adding for small components such as RAM, we have over 600 million USD, then we need a massive amount of powerful PSUs and probably a nuclear power station nearby to feed all this datacenter. To this we need to add the setup of those 12.500 machines, eventual hardware failure and management, $1 billion wouldn't be enough. Whereas the Qubic marketcap is at about 250 million USD, not enough to buy even the CPUs. He probably thought to rent servers, however datacenters with these CPUs have AUP terms, so while he was calculating to have those machines mining XMR, the datacenter most likely disconnects them as AUP violation as CPU usage is way too high.

Desperate-Barnacle-4

Seems like a less secure version of a hot wallet? Private keys visible to CPU and clipboard etc on pc? Whatever you do don't use bitaddress. You can download https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ and run it offline. Suggest electrum if you want hot. Backup the seed in your brain or on steel. Simple. Or get a trezor and steel for colder.

CBpegasus

To the best of our knowledge and expectations, quantum computers won't "crack" SHA-256 at all. That doesn't mean the quantum threat does not exist - the main issue is ECDSA. The scenario grok refers to as "cracking" SHA-256 is being able to run Grover's search on it, which gives a quadratic advantage in search. That means that to fully reverse a hash (find a preimage that hash to a specific hash) you need to do around 2^128 steps instead of 2^256 - but that is still unfeasible to do, will take more than the age of the universe even if we assume the QC is as fast as the fastest processors today. The problem of finding collisions (two preimages that hash to the same thing) is a bit easier, takes 2^128 steps classically and 2^64 with Grover's search - that is still mostly unfeasible, but not quite "age of the universe" level and could maybe be done if we get quantum computers *very* fast. But even in this case, it's easy to just move to SHA-512. The issue which is unique to Bitcoin is mining. In mining the miners do a partial reversal of SHA-256 (trying to hit a range of preimages) which is just hard enough for the whole network to do it in 10 minutes. A quantum computer gets a quadratic advantage on that partial reversal too, and since mining is competetive it won't need to be extremely powerful to dominate. Still you would need a much more powerful quantum computer than we currently have or expect to have in the coming decades, and you can't even effectively "join forces" from several quantum computers because Grover's search doesn't parallelize well. So it looks like this isn't a concern for a while, but when it is it looks like it would change the landscape of mining significantly (much more than the CPU->GPU->ASIC transition), mostly for the worse it seems for decentralization and robustness. It's unclear if any kind of proof-of-work we know can work well with quantum. Anyway the real problem which is more pressing is the ECDSA signature scheme, which is what is used in Bitcoin to sign transactions using a private key, such that they can be verified with the public key. This signature scheme is thought to be possible to crack with quantum computers - going from public key to private key. Now there are modern algorithms which are thought to be quantum resistant, but there are some issues with moving Bitcoin to use them - you need people to willingly migrate to a quantum resistant wallet, as they need a new private key from the new algorithm. It's of course tough to rally everyone and for some it would not even be possible as they lost access to their keys. Quite a few of the early wallets whose public key is exposed would become "quantum loot" and there is some discussion over whether to let it be stolen or freeze those finds. Another issue is that the signatures in quantum resistant algorithms are much larger, and that's an issue with block space already being a premium.

CBpegasus

SHA-256 is not an encryption but a hash function, and it already is something that quantum computers cannot crack (to the best of our knowledge and expectations). The scenario grok refers to as "cracking" SHA-256 is being able to run Grover's search on it, which gives a quadratic advantage in search. That means that to fully reverse a hash (find a preimage that hash to a specific hash) you need to do around 2^128 steps instead of 2^256 - but that is still unfeasible to do, will take more than the age of the universe even if we assume the QC is as fast as the fastest processors today. The problem of finding collisions (two preimages that hash to the same thing) is a bit easier, takes 2^128 steps classically and 2^64 with Grover's search - that is still mostly unfeasible, but not quite "age of the universe" level and could maybe be done if we get quantum computers *very* fast. But even in this case, it's easy to just move to SHA-512. The issue which is unique to Bitcoin is mining. In mining the miners do a partial reversal of SHA-256 (trying to hit a range of preimages) which is just hard enough for the whole network to do it in 10 minutes. A quantum computer gets a quadratic advantage on that partial reversal too, and since mining is competetive it won't need to be extremely powerful to dominate. Still you would need a much more powerful quantum computer than we currently have or expect to have in the coming decades, and you can't even effectively "join forces" from several quantum computers because Grover's search doesn't parallelize well. So it looks like this isn't a concern for a while, but when it is it looks like it would change the landscape of mining significantly (much more than the CPU->GPU->ASIC transition), mostly for the worse it seems for decentralization and robustness. It's unclear if any kind of proof-of-work we know can work well with quantum. Anyway the real problem which is more pressing is the ECDSA signature scheme, which is what is used in Bitcoin to sign transactions using a private key, such that they can be verified with the public key. This signature scheme is thought to be possible to crack with quantum computers - going from public key to private key. Now there are modern algorithms which are thought to be quantum resistant, but there are some issues with moving Bitcoin to use them - you need people to willingly migrate to a quantum resistant wallet, as they need a new private key from the new algorithm. It's of course tough to rally everyone and for some it would not even be possible as they lost access to their keys. Quite a few of the early wallets whose public key is exposed would become "quantum loot" and there is some discussion over whether to let it be stolen or freeze those finds. Another issue is that the signatures in quantum resistant algorithms are much larger, and that's an issue with block space already being a premium.

arthurwolf

That's wrong though... The quantities are impressive, but not **that** impressive... 333k BTC is an **insane** number... I mined Bitcoin in the very early days of the project (like a few days after it first got around the nerd media circles like hackernews etc), and at the rate I mined at the time it would have taken me **a VERY long time** to get to 333k BTC... The 10 largest 2010-era wallets: | Rank | Address | BTC balance (unspent) | First-ever “In” | Last activity | Quick note | | ---- | ---------------------------------- | --------------------- | --------------- | ------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | 1 | 12ib7dApVFvg82TXKycWBNpN8kFyiAN1dr | 31 000 BTC | 13 May 2010 | 24 Jul 2010 (last out); dormant since | Also known as **“Wallet 967.”** The biggest single early-miner hoard ([BitInfoCharts][1]) | | 2 | 12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsTey55YEBqkv | 28 151 BTC | 5 Apr 2010 | Never spent | Never sent a single satoshi out ([BitInfoCharts][2]) | | 3 | 1PeizMg76Cf96nUQrYg8xuoZWLQozU5zGW | 19 414 BTC | 24 Jul 2010 | Dormant | Typical “one-way” consolidation of block rewards ([BitInfoCharts][3]) | | 4 | 1HLvaTs3zR3oev9ya7Pzp3GB9Gqfg6XYJT | 9 260 BTC | 18 Mar 2010 | Dormant | Nine thousand BTC mined in the spring of 2010 ([BitInfoCharts][4]) | | 5 | 167ZWTT8n6s4ya8cGjqNNQjDwDGY31vmHg | 8 999 BTC | 9 Aug 2010 | Dormant | Final large deposit came only two weeks after GPUs appeared ([BitInfoCharts][5]) | | 6 | 198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi | 8 000 BTC | 22 Feb 2009 | Dormant | Technically an even *earlier* CPU-mined stash from Bitcoin’s first month ([BitInfoCharts][6]) | | 7 | 15Z5YJaaNSxeynvr6uW6jQZLwq3n1Hu6RX | 7 941 BTC | 10 Apr 2010 | Last spent Oct 2010 | Only small change was ever moved ([BitInfoCharts][7]) | | 8 | 1FJuzzQFVMbiMGw6JtcXefdD64amy7mSCF | 6 999 BTC | 8 Nov 2010 | Dormant | Likely pooled rewards from late-2010 solo mining ([BitInfoCharts][8]) | | 9 | 1ALXLVNj7yKRU2Yki3K3yQGB5TBPof7jyo | 4 000 BTC | 24 Jul 2010 | Dormant | A neat 4 000 BTC collected in one afternoon of block hunting ([BitInfoCharts][9]) | | 10 | 1FvUkW8thcqG6HP7gAvAjcR52fR7CYodBx | 3 350 BTC | 7 Aug 2010 | Minimal outs in 2011 | One of the few early whales that *has* moved small amounts ([BitInfoCharts][10]) | Sources: [1]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/12ib7dApVFvg82TXKycWBNpN8kFyiAN1dr?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 12ib7dApVFvg82TXKycWBNpN8kFyiAN1dr" [2]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsTey55YEBqkv?utm_source=chatgpt.com "12tkqA9xSoowkzoERHMWNKsT..." [3]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1PeizMg76Cf96nUQrYg8xuoZWLQozU5zGW?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 1PeizMg76Cf96nUQrYg8xuoZWLQozU5zGW" [4]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1HLvaTs3zR3oev9ya7Pzp3GB9Gqfg6XYJT?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 1HLvaTs3zR3oev9ya7Pzp3GB9Gqfg6XYJT" [5]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/167ZWTT8n6s4ya8cGjqNNQjDwDGY31vmHg?utm_source=chatgpt.com "167ZWTT8n6s4ya8cGjqNNQjDw..." [6]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi" [7]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/15Z5YJaaNSxeynvr6uW6jQZLwq3n1Hu6RX?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 15Z5YJaaNSxeynvr6uW6jQZLwq3n1Hu6RX" [8]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1FJuzzQFVMbiMGw6JtcXefdD64amy7mSCF?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 1FJuzzQFVMbiMGw6JtcXefdD64amy7mSCF" [9]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1ALXLVNj7yKRU2Yki3K3yQGB5TBPof7jyo?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 1ALXLVNj7yKRU2Yki3K3yQGB5TBPof7jyo" [10]: https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/1FvUkW8thcqG6HP7gAvAjcR52fR7CYodBx?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Bitcoin Address 1FvUkW8thcqG6HP7gAvAjcR52fR7CYodBx"

Top_Mind9514

Technology is a “physical” thing/force/process, see CPU’s, GPU’s Motherboards, Servers, etc etc. BTC is a Digital Token, and Tokens, have been integrated into how “we” exist, how we function now and in the future, in conjunction WITH technology. Every single time that you login to a website, part of the authentication process is, issuing you a Token after your Identity has been verified. Tokens are not going away. They are an essential part of technology, now, and in the foreseeable future. BTC will NEVER Die or disappear, and if it does, so will WE ALL

mcgravier

Renting hardware was always issue when it comes to CPU mining. CPU coins were advertised as more decentralised ect. But the truth is that it just makes attack easier due to hardware universal - unlike ASICS it can be rented and sold after successful attack. IMO Monero should switch to ETH style PoS and be done with mining

5lipperySausage

Yeah, only CPU based mining orgs could do a 51%. Not sure if any of those he mentioned really have enough CPU hash, they mostly ASICs

ContentBlackberry0

What did satoshi mean by this in the white paper? “The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.” So if all the governments had attacker nodes the system is no longer secure?

trimalcus

just run your CPU

trimalcus

Some real data here : [https://gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7](https://gist.github.com/Rucknium/0873b10b6d36ff6c9d6f8f54107d16f7) They are most likely renting CPU hashrate and they have enough money to do so Furthermore they cannot reach more than 20% of the 24h mean global hashrate at the moment. There are only spikes during 1hour time frame

Hoserposerbro

Bitcoin uses ASICs. What made this possible was CPU mining.

Arbiter_89

I also like the tech and dislike shills. I tried mining BTC in 2011. People who were into it then had to at least partially be interested in the tech. (My mining didn't get very far. I was mining with a CPU just before CPU mining was becomming unprofitable.) I think there are more elements of Bitcoin that are offered fundamentally, but I think your example is a good reason to include it in a portfolio.

Particular-Honey-487

I met a dude once that sold bitcoin in person for cash. He said that he had been doing it for a long time so I asked him how much he bought for and he said $10. He could see that I was immediately star struck and in awe. Then he followed with the statement, “Ya, when it hit $20 I had doubled my money so I sold it all” i’m not sure how much he bought but I would guess in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. I agree with OP, nobody knew what this was going to turn into. The first price I ever remember was $2. I used to mine about .1 BTC and merge mine Namecoin. At the same time, my CPU was mining Litecoin. I lost it all to donations and Satoshi dice and butterfly labs. When I hit $99 I felt like I had missed the boat so I threw in the towel and bought 1 BTC and left the space. When it hits $700 my ex hit me up and asked me if I still had the bitcoin that I had mind when we were together because she wanted to split it because she needed money. I sold it and sent her $350, and spent my half. I don’t start buying again until it was running up to $20k. No matter what, it’s probably always too early to sell but we all do what we’ve got to do.

PoisonWaffle3

And to think, I profitably mined BTC on the CPU and a pair of GPUs in a gaming PC back in 2011 😅

xnergy5

Privacy-focused Monero is facing what appears to be an attempted network takeover by former top mining pool Qubic, prompting community backlash and concerns over hashrate centralization. As of Monday, Qubic had fallen from the top spot on the Monero XMR $246.33 mining pool rankings to seventh, according to MiningPoolStats data. After the community noticed the pool looked to be openly performing a network takeover, the pool’s hashrate plummeted until it fell into its current position as the seventh-largest XMR mining pool. In a June 30 blog post, Qubic revealed that it had begun incentivizing Monero CPU mining via its own network. The mined XMR would then be used to fund buybacks and token burns for the Qubic ecosystem. “QUBIC miners now perform real-world tasks (Monero mining) that generate real market value, which in turn strengthens the QUBIC economy,” the post stated. Sergey Ivancheglo, founder of crypto projects Qubic, NXT and Iota, has admitted that his Qubic network was staging a takeover of the Monero network. In a recent X post, he said that after getting control of most of the network’s hashrate, Qubic would reject the blocks mined by other pools.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Monero, a privacy-focused cryptocurrency, is facing an attempted network takeover by Qubic, a former top mining pool. Qubic incentivized Monero CPU mining to fund its ecosystem, with founder Sergey Ivancheglo admitting plans to control most of Monero's hashrate and reject blocks from other pools. This raised concerns over centralization and network security. However, Qubic's hashrate has since dropped significantly. Ivancheglo claims the attack is a test for countermeasures against future threats, but critics warn of risks to Monero's decentralization and integrity. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

Charming-Designer944

I see no real story other than the BTC value. Then gained value is beyond where they need to care any more and they have no meaningful reason to stay in btc. It makes no real difference to them if BTC sees another 10x run, or if it falls back to 1/3 of its current value. Most of the early Bitcoiners were geeks,.playing around with this new "digital gold" which you could mine almost for free using spare CPU cycles on your computer and send to other geeks. It is not like.they consciously invested in something they expected to grow by 25000000% in 15 years. At the time it was a fun gimmick, worth nothing. Over the years those geeks have grown up. A couple of them have become bitcoiners and are running Bitcoin related businesses, many starting with mining and then expanding into Blockchain ventures. But many are likely much the same geeks they were but now with a family. And priorities in life shifts. Most of those who became bitcoiners have invested their coins with the hope to.generate more coins. Some quite successfully so, others losing most of their coins. Some selling parts of their coins living of Bitcoin while still getting richer in fiat terms. But I think you will find a significant amount of whales who have simply been "sleeping". Involved with Bitcoin in the early days, got burnt a couple of times, and lost interest. Built a life doing something fun. Keeping most of their Bitcoin as a memory, and possibly even scared by the increase in value not daring to touch them. And now realizing they do not need to care about money ever again.

StackingFiat

Pretty sure this convo is the reason for the post. Talking with an alter ego about how he can magically recover coins that can’t exist in hope that other people contact him. The whole story is BS. Buying BTC in 2009? BS -> you could easily CPU mine and get hundreds if not thousands of coins in days/weeks. There also was no market, no price. That is why Pizza Day was so monumental -> first time BTC had real confirmed value. There just was no seed phrase in 2009. The idea wasn’t just in anybody’s head. Even after it was introduced people were careful. People talk about custom wallets in electrum. What electrum? Electrum was first released in 2011 as there was no infrastructure and absolutely no need to not use anything else than Bitcoin Core. Downloading the blockchain took a couple of minutes and if you wanted to mine which was standard back in the day you didn’t have a choice (I am not really sure if there was anything else come to think of it). PLEASE do not contact anybody in this conversation if you are having problems with your wallet. Post a Reddit thread.

OneFormal4075

It's not strangely common at all, thousands and thousands of people mined or used BTC back then, some of held some have been in prison, some locked it away in ways where they can't even access their keys for X amount of years, smart. Some people find old devices or come across old emails etc where they suddenly remember passwords to old devices. People inherit or find old devices from dead relatives and family members etc. There's loads and loads of reasons, nothing strange going on at all. Yes 2000 BTC sounds like a lot now, but back then when it was <$2 we would often send an extra 10 BTC to make sure the receiver received enough lol. $1m-$2m tips. 🤣🤣🤣 Remember in the early early CPU days top end CPUs was getting you 200+ BTC per hour lol Good luck you're still early. Dca and hold.

Interesting_Loss_907

Nice post. I think a lot of of us have similar regrets about decisions we made related to BTC. Have to correct 1 point though OP: In 2015 there was no way that he was using laptops to mine BTC. By 2015 all mining was from ASICs. In fact, CPU mining was already dead by 2011.

coinfeeds-bot

tldr; Hackers have infected over 3,500 websites with cryptojacking malware that uses visitors' browsers to mine Monero without consent. The campaign, uncovered by cybersecurity firm c/side, employs stealthy techniques like throttling CPU usage and hiding traffic in WebSocket streams to avoid detection. This resurgence of cryptojacking focuses on long-term access and passive income, repurposing old infrastructure from past Magecart campaigns. The malware targets server and web app owners rather than directly stealing crypto wallets. *This summary is auto generated by a bot and not meant to replace reading the original article. As always, DYOR.

BruceAENZ

Whilst this is a core feature of Bitcoin, I had no idea it was the case when I set up ky first node, mined Bitcoin on mu CPU, deleted everything to save storage space, brought BTC at the peak in 2017, tried to trade it, got wrecked, then - finally - learned that BTC has a fixed supply. It took until the 2021 peak - when I brought back in again - to realise there was a halving cycle LOL.

slash_networkboy

I sold at $100 "because it's gonna pop and I'm getting mine while I can" (I had been burned by eGold in the dot com bubble). Still have the truck I bought (used) with the 150 BTC I didn't even pay for: CPU mined back at a former employer's lab... machines were on 24/7 but the lab was an 8-5 lab so I just set them up to mine overnight to a wallet on a shared drive.

Radiokot1

1. Your smartphone has various interfaces, radio and physical, through which it can be hacked 2. It is never offline. It is connected to cell towers even without a SIM card 3. You can't neither control nor verify the software running on your smartphone. Beside the main OS, it has proprietary closed-source code running in radio chips 4. If it is an old smartphone never connected to the Internet, it doesn't have the latest security updates for the operating system and could probably be hacked in 0 clicks by simply connecting it to a computer 5. All the cryptographic operations are done in a general purpose CPU On the other hand: 1. Hardware wallet is a bare minimum device designed specifically for signing transactions, it doesn't have unnecessary unsafe interfaces 2. You can verify the software running on it 3. A hardware wallet uses a dedicated secure chip to store the keys and do the signing

Defiant_disco_4062

I think we are saying the same thing, brother/sister. You're right, in 100 years a very hardworking person will never get close to what the CPU guy mined in 2010. Same applies to most people today, esp those who haven't seen the need to start stacking. But you know what 100 year guy stands a better chance of having with bitcoin? Fair value for his hardwork, in his time 100 years from now, whatever that looks like.

Grand-Button5819

>In an (or maybe I should say 'my') "ideal" world, the amount of value a person has or controls should be roughly equal to the amount of work they've put in, in whatever form - physically, mentally, creatively, etc. While I agree with your sentiment and I'm very much pro-Bitcoin, I don't think Bitcoin fits your worldview too well. If Bitcoin succeeds, in 100 years you could be the hardest working, most creative person to ever have lived and you'll never get even close to what some random dude pulled CPU mining back in 2010 if he managed to hold on to it. You wouldn't even get close to the guy who put $120k today and got a whole coin for it. I think you vastly underestimate the luck factor (right place, right time, right mindset) in the wealth game.

Money-Society3148

Old heads are making the money moves. It's just a fact. When I say "old heads" I just mean age. There are plenty of older people who are intelligent enough to understand tech because sometimes they were part of it's development. I mean how far deep do you want to go down the roots of tech. The transistor? The CPU? The Internet? Ethernet? SHA-256? A lot of tech was created by older engineers. Now, I do agree with what you said about old folk not so quick to accept new technology. That caution is because of experience where an unproven tech has cost millions of dollars. Most of the time the stubbornness from old folk comes from the financial side. A lot of old people worked very hard for their money to just toss it out on an unproven technology. The dotcom bubble siphoned out a lot of older people's money and that experience made them cautiously skeptical. It's just the experience talking really - don't take it personal.

MandelbrotFace

"mined on CPU" 😁 ... Oh to have caught that wave

UtahJohnnyMontana

You are assuming, based on present knowledge, that you would have gone big into Bitcoin 8 years ago, but most people didn't do that. Odds are, you would have done something else. I knew about Bitcoin in 2010, when I could have still done CPU mining and I didn't do anything more than read the whitepaper. I watched it for six more years after that and didn't buy any. And then I started to buy it very slowly at a time when I still could have afforded to go big. You know about it know and it is still likely to be one of the best performing assets for quite a while. All that you have to do is work hard and lock away those savings.

SpaceFaceMistake

Nope. Why? It won’t ever happen and even if it does as an example from today $123k so far ATH. Drops in a week or month rather down to say 90k in a week then $30k by 1 month. And sits stable. That’s not a ISSUE for companies especially those for long term or mooong companies it’s not ever about the now. I mean the only thing about Now is “DO WE BUY MORE” or “DO WE ADD MORE MINING RIGS KOW FOR $USD” pay that off and earn more $btc that overshadows $USD value since one is inherently stable yet has no supply cap. Cash can be printed and Bitcoin cannot and it’s a VOLATILE market but it’s a very rigid supply of exactly what there is to be mined which ends or will be all mined around 2146 or something. Even if humans aren’t here or we are Smart Humans rigged with AI or it’s just a CPU world it will be mined. Then when it’s all mined $BTC owners and big companies will have massive leverage on the market due to early inception like us now. Don’t miss it but when it drops when there is FEAR that it won’t go back up.  Listen I’ve been here from the $1 stage I saw it go to $100 and back to $20 then up to $500 back to $80 then up to 6k down to $600 then up to $20k down to $3k then up to $69k down to $17k up to $123k Today.  Look at and follow the 200W or D MA that’s on ugh Blockchain the chart section when on $BTC. Shows how we are only half way to peak of this cycle. Anticipate this in October. GL all! 

metinota

If I remember this right, 2011 was back in the era when you would mine bitcoin using your computer's CPU with what is now called the **Bitcoin Core** client. There should be a file called **wallet.dat** on that hard drive that contains the private keys needed to "move" or transfer the bitcoin. If you lose that file, you lose access to the bitcoin. Bitcoin Core from that era did *not* encrypt the wallet.dat file, but your friend's father may have encrypted it some other way to keep it safe. See if you can find the wallet.dat file by mounting the hard drive to a computer not connected to the internet. Better if it's a freshly installed OS that has never been connected to the internet. You don't want malware stealing a copy of that file. In parallel to this, install Bitcoin Core on your computer and it will set up a new, empty wallet. Learn how to buy bitcoin on an exchange and move the bitcoin into and out of this wallet. This becomes your learning platform where you can make mistakes and not lose big. When you've learned enough, you can then start working with the really valuable ancient wallet.dat file (on a fresh computer). When you open Bitcoin Core and have it use this file, it will show you the transaction history and bitcoin balance that it holds. Good luck and be patient!

314stache_nathy

Monero is PoW and only-CPU

jabootiemon

Genuinely shocking. Bitcoin highlights the lack of knowledge in people in terms of CPU’s and money.

420osrs

You can't mind Bitcoin on a phone at a speed that would generate any money whatsoever. You can mine a CPU coin on the phone and specifically I did this at one point to pay for my VPN but the phone only made $5 in 30 days. If you try to install a product that  "shares bandwidth" What you are actually running is something that lets other people use your connection for at best click fraud / ai scraping and at worst unlawful content. This can get you blocked by Cloudflare and a bunch of other CDNs when you start sending out a bunch of bullshit traffic. Do not install this. It can have legal consequences for you. Do not install this. So anyway, the overall thing is if you have an old pixel you can make two dollars a month, mining a CPU coin, and then swap it to Bitcoin, which honestly will not even cover the five or so Watts the phone uses. And even if it did, it's $2. Lmao. 

HodlVitality

Personally I think dca (bit by bit) might be a safer play while Bitcoin is near all time high. Although since the projected end game is Bitcoin price far surpassing 100k, it doesn’t matter too much. Strike is good. Just make sure your id is verified and you’re able to withdraw. A cold wallet is the only way to go for long term storage. I use Jade in stateless mode, much like a seedsigner hardware wallet. Mining is now primarily run on specialized ASIC hardware, not CPU or GPU in your computer. And you’d need a lot of asic and near free electricity to see any profitability, but something like bitaxe is a fun lottery miner.

gundamxxg

I lost a hard drive with a wallet that had roughly 150BTC on it that I mined in the beginning with a CPU, back when that was still a thing. Have no clue where that drive ended up, but it’s likely with all the other stuff I lost in like 2013 :/

kipha01

Choosing to do SETI @ HOME over Bitcoin back when you could run it off a CPU/GPU.

Cassiopee38

With a spare CPU xD

armaver

2008. I could have fucking mined with my CPU if I just read a few more sentences before clicking away.

ArthurBurtonMorgan

What you’re seeing is front running bots. 1/2 the cause of all the rug pulls you guys suffer from trying to trade shit coins. When you’re ready to get in on the ground floor of a real project, PM me. It’s live, it’s CPU mineable, and it’s built on proven technology. No bullshit involved. Mine it right now on a dusty old laptop and hit blocks. Isn’t even exchange listed yet.

314stache_nathy

If Monero be illegal, I will be a criminal heh  Monero is descentralized and Open-source, nah, they don't can destroy Monero, Monero is anti-fragibility.  How buy Monero: Use Retoswap.com, Cyphergoat, Trocador.app and Serai.excharge in future. How mine Monero: Use your CPU + P2Pool or solo mining (or creat your mining pool, all there opcional turns Monero more descenfralized). How store Monero: Use Monerujo or Feather Wallet + Sidekick or Anonero.  (And have wallets that use a Pen-drive with TailsOS).  see more in r/Monero and Monero.eco

314stache_nathy

Buy Monero in DEXs like Retoswap.com or mine with your CPU with P2Pool. And have Cyphergoat and Trocador.app 

Head_Performance2432

Excuse me for being ignorant, I just made a suggestion with Stratum V2, I didn't mean to be an ass either. So take this below with a GRAIN OF SALT. I am focusing on the hash rate part All I know, is Stratum V2 is going to reshape the way it works with choosing a pool, as a noob I could be wrong though...that's why I did not go further into details. I am not here to mislead someone... Tbh, and I don't think an AI will help about what you're asking as to "Why do people keep mining in those gigantic pools?" As a general rule : People don't like to be the first mover, and they do not want to take risk of being separated from the mass but once it has started, domino effect will come into play...if you ask me... My personal research leads me to THINK : A pool holds many individual miners that are free to unplug, so how could they gather to rewrite the blockchain, as you suggest ? So I personally will not worry, since energy is well distributed on the planet, there will always be miners of last resort, (be an individual, another pool of miners, countries). The way I see mining is more a moving game theory, and even pools could fail if they do not manage correctly their activity. Why not imaging States mining in the future competing with each other (rendering today's pools obsolete ?) Even considering this : if Moore's law hits a limit, the deflationary aspect of the economy might make profitable for the pleb to mine on their own (cheaper Asics) as it was intended from the start (CPU) and leading to more decentralization. Unpopular Opinion : I am not an AI fan for doing research, I prefer spending time to "understand" topics and fill in the blanks if needed, it is very time intensive though ! TL, DR : I am not an AI fan and I don't know if I can help you further

PoisonWaffle3

I mined 5 BTC with my gaming PC in 2011, when BTC was $2-3 USD/BTC. I mined on the Core2 Quad CPU itself, and both GPUs (a Radeon HD 6870 and a Radeon HD 4670), and was part of a mining pool that took 2% off the top and paid out the rest a few times a day. I thought that BTC was going nowhere and sold what I had in my Mt God account for about $10 in November 2011, right before I went to prison for six years. When I got out of prison in 2017 I found that I still had 1.15 BTC left in my wallet.dat on the PC. I moved it to a more modern wallet and sold some of it (at about $10k USD/BTC to help pay fines/debts. I sold some more about five years later at around $60k USD/BTC to help build a house. I still have 0.1 BTC left in that wallet that I don't think I'll ever sell. At the end of 2022 when BTC crashed down to $15k I bought a whole coin and change and have that in another wallet. We're doing pretty great overall, but I really regret selling that BTC at under $3 in 2011 😅

eharmanli

You're absolutely right — realistically, scanning such huge ranges on a phone isn't practical. Mobile apps like mine are more for learning, experimentation, and exploring how keyhunt-style scanning works. In real-world puzzle-solving, tools like KeyHunt (CPU-based) or BitCrack (CUDA/GPU-based) on desktops are statistically far more capable. **For example:** 📱 Xiaomi Mi 8 Lite → \~100 keys/second 📱 Poco X3 Pro → around 3–4× faster than that (\~300–400 keys/second) On a modern PC with proper GPU support, you can easily reach millions of keys per second. So yeah — the mobile version isn’t for serious cracking, but it helps visualize and test ideas while on the go But hey — maybe you're just *really* lucky 🍀 Might be worth a try, right?

314stache_nathy

I would say that Monero (XMR) is necessary so that you can protect yourself from a possible authoritarian government and to save your finances for the future, Monero is untraceable and fungible, I recommend that you take a look at the website Getmonero. org to find out more about Monero, some methods of acquiring it are: CPU mining (Monero is easy to CPU mine thanks to its algorithm, I recommend you use P2Pool), buying through DEXs such as RetoSwap, Basicswap, UnstoppableSwap (and in the future through Serai.excharge), you can also sell things for Monero through XMRBaazar for example, plus there's TradeOgre (all these methods are non-KYC). Call me if you have any questions!

sgrinavi

Some friends and I have a small CPU farm, RN we're on TIG - it's paying the bills, but not much more. You have to scan daily to keep up - try to find something that's about to launch, prepare, follow and mine the hell out of it for a couple of days. You might get lucky and make bank. I made $20k off octa in two days of mining and about the same from IXI over a longer period. Be prepared to HODL. Shit is out there, you have be patient and willing to hodl.

Amber_Sam

>GTA 7 In 2040? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. On a serious note, I believe the size will eventually get bigger. Not sure when though. Many people including myself have PTSD from [the Blocksize War](https://youtu.be/6YtS5ZNuuTw) and it'll take a lot of effort to do it right but it eventually gets done. Now, it isn't only about the cost of a drive, bigger blocks will need more CPU, RAM and faster internet connection. So the cost of running a node will get higher. But once we see the ability to run a node on cheap android (or hopefully Linux) phones, the size increase will make much more sense. Note to the bcash shills reading this, thinking why not using their shitty fork instead. Because the vast majority of the network will have to agree on the increase. Not a scammer Roger posting a tweet about the hardfork. That's not how decentralized system works. And yes, your dying shitcoin will be obsolete.

lohmatij

There are smart ways to implement it. Currently there are around 170 million UTXO. If you use hash map with a relatively short hashes (RipeMD160/sha256) you can achieve around 5-10 billion checks a second on a modern 32 core CPU (AMD EPYC). Hash map will occupy around 20GB of memory.

Severe-Masterpiece61

That post is extremely misleading Super-computer are general-purpose CPU/GPU that can do many kind of theoretical calculation while the BTC network is only composed of rig incapable of doing anything besides computing the SHA256 hash of a string Your chart compares two completely different things

Extra-Virus9958

Full bullshit Bitcoin ASICs are ultra-specialized chips that ONLY do SHA-256 hashing. That’s it. They can’t do addition, multiplication, handle RAM, or literally anything else. It’s like comparing an electric can opener to a Swiss Army knife and saying “look, the can opener is 1000x faster at opening cans!” Yeah, but that’s all it does. A modern supercomputer can execute billions of different instructions per second, run complex scientific calculations, physics simulations, machine learning… The entire Bitcoin network wouldn’t even be able to properly emulate a single CPU core due to network latency. So yeah, technically the Bitcoin network processes more TeraFLOPS… but for ONE cryptographic operation only. It’s like saying a factory that only makes bottle caps is “more productive” than a car factory because it outputs more units per hour. This impressive-looking metric means absolutely nothing in practice. It’s just basic crypto marketing to impress people who don’t understand the tech. This comparison is completely bogus IMO.

Desperate-Low5201

That dude developed GPU mining of Bitcoin and did the 10,000 thing many times over... Around 70,000 Bitcoin... He had mined so much Bitcoin that Satoshi was bothered about it and as such Laszlo did some heavy spending... Redistribution so to speak...  Pizza guy was on a very short list of top Bitcoin people back then.  He knew the significance and documented it.  He certainly didn't realize the future value significance!   He is largely credited for having started some frame of reference of value for Bitcoin!  Beyond expanding from CPU mining.

Original-Assistant-8

The one that is titled "A Peer to Peer electronic cash system ?" It was not intended to be like gold. But I'd be curious where in the white paper you are confidently referring. Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone.

Familiar_Drawer6125

I cant find any tool that can check passwords with GPU. I use btcrecover but it use CPU and its very slow 1000 p/s. The GPU option in btcrecover doesnt work for me/my wallet. Any suggestion for gpu tool besides hashcat?

asakura67

100% CPU means 100% fans. I tried this back in 2010 and this was a fucking boing screaming in my chamber.

ArthurBurtonMorgan

Imagine a desktop tower PC from 2008-2009 or so running 100% across both CPU cores 24/7. Fans screaming at full speed incessantly. That’s not tolerable for most people, as most people expect their machines to be whisper quiet the majority of the time.

jeffbeck67

How fake can that be ? MIning was done on CPU back then.

ostracize

First heard about it on Slashdot in 2011. Didn't give it much attention because: 1. Eats up CPU cycles with unlikely benefits (at least protein folding seemed more useful) 2. P2P. Didn't like the idea of randos connecting to me and eating up my precious bandwidth 3. The blockchain was already eating up a fair bit of disk space. Didn't want to give up my hard drive for that 4. It seemed like a more complicated version of a service Paypal was already offering Kept tabs on it over the next few years. I started to recognize the value but Mt. Gox was sketchy AF. Silk Road held appeal to me and didn't seem likely to ever be of use. I was right on both fronts there.